Task: songer_realresp

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
Your task is to determine whether or not the formally listed respondents in the case are the "real parties." That is, are they the parties whose real interests are most directly at stake? (e.g., in some appeals of adverse habeas corpus petition decisions, the respondent is listed as the judge who denied the petition, but the real parties are the prisoner and the warden of the prison) (another example would be "Jones v A 1990 Rolls Royce" where Jones is a drug agent trying to seize a car which was transporting drugs - the real party would be the owner of the car). For cases in which an independent regulatory agency is the listed respondent, the following rule was adopted: If the agency initiated the action to enforce a federal rule or the agency was sued by a litigant contesting an agency action, then the agency was coded as a real party. However, if the agency initially only acted as a forum to settle a dispute between two other litigants, and the agency is only listed as a party because its ruling in that dispute is at issue, then the agency is considered not to be a real party. For example, if a union files an unfair labor practices charge against a corporation, the NLRB hears the dispute and rules for the union, and then the NLRB petitions the court of appeals for enforcement of its ruling in an appeal entitled "NLRB v Widget Manufacturing, INC." the NLRB would be coded as not a real party. Note that under these definitions, trustees are usually "real parties" and parents suing on behalf of their children and a spouse suing on behalf of their injured or dead spouse are also "real parties."

WALKER, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus, which was issued pursuant to the prayer of a petition whieh was filed on February 4,1928. That petition complained of the detention of the petitioner in the United States penitentiary at Atlanta under a judgment, rendered in a consolidated ease on December 6, 1926, which, on petitioner’s pleas of guilty to two counts in one indictment, to three counts in another indictment, and to two counts in another indictment, sentenced him to be confined in said penitentiary for a period of eight years, commencing on the day he is committed to said penitentiary, and to pay the sum of $8,000 fine. Petitioner was committed to said penitentiary on December 8, 1926. The counts to which petitioner pleaded guilty charged sundry violations of the National Prohibition Act. The offense charged in each of five of those counts —a second offense of selling intoxicating liquor in violation of section 3, title 2, of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA § 12)— was punishable by a maximum fine of $2,0.00 and imprisonment of not more than five years.
This court has decided that where a defendant, convicted on two or more counts of an indictment charging separate offenses of the same kind, was given a sentence in gross for a term of imprisonment not exceeding the sum of the terms whieh might have been imposed under the counts separately, the sentence, although it may he irregular, is not a nullity, and the defendant cannot be discharged on habeas corpus. Blake v. Moyer, Warden (C. C. A.) 208 F. 678.
But, even if the sentence of imprisonment in question properly could be regarded as a nullity to some extent, it was not a nullity except as to the part of the sentence which was in excess of the term of imprisonment 'which lawfully could be imposed on the conviction of the petitioner on one of the counts to which he pleaded guilty; and petitioner was not entitled to be discharged on habeas corpus prior to the expiration of the five-year term of imprisonment to which he was subject to be sentenced under any one of several counts on which he was convicted. De Bara v. United States (C. C. A.) 99 F. 942. It follows that the order discharging the writ was not erroneous, the five-year term of imprisonment imposable upon petitioner’s conviction under any one of several counts to which he pleaded guilty not having expired when the petition was sued out, and when the writ was discharged.
That order is affirmed.

Question: Are the formally listed respondents in the case the "real parties", that is, are they the parties whose real interests are most directly at stake?
A. both 1st and 2nd listed respondents are real parties (or only one respondent, and that respondent is a real party)
B. the 1st respondent is not a real party
C. the 2nd respondent is not a real party
D. neither the 1st nor the 2nd respondents are real parties
E. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A