Task: songer_r_fiduc

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.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

GEE, Circuit Judge:
Facts
In 1985, Charley Ray Smith pleaded guilty to a charge of distribution of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). The district court sentenced him to a four-year term of imprisonment, which was suspended, and a special parole term of three years. The court also ordered Smith to participate in a drug aftercare program and to give 100 hours to community service work.
After sentencing, Smith tested positive for amphetamines. He had previously tested positive for amphetamines while he was on pretrial release. On January 21, 1986, the district court amended its judgment and probation order to require Smith to spend six months in a Salvation Army halfway house. In violation of the halfway house order, Smith went to Alaska in April 1986. The court issued a warrant for Smith’s arrest and he was arrested in Alaska. His probation was therefore revoked on July 18, 1986. Smith filed a motion to reduce his sentence, which the district court denied on April 24, 1987. Smith then filed this § 2255 motion, alleging that the special parole term of his sentence was illegal and that he had not been given proper credit for the time he was in federal custody. After ordering the government to respond, and considering its response, the district court denied the motion.
Discussion
Smith asserts that the district court erred in failing to vacate his special parole term. Smith contends that a person sentenced for a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) after the passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 could not be sentenced to a special parole term because the Act deleted special parole from the penalty provisions of § 841.
We have held that the proper penalty statute is the one in effect when the offense is committed. United States v. Byrd, 837 F.2d 179, 81 (5th Cir.1988). The Comprehensive Crime Control Act amendments to § 841 did not take effect until November 1, 1987. On September 29, 1984, the date of Smith’s offense, the penalty provision, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), mandated a special parole term of at least three years when the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment upon a defendant. United States v. De Los Reyes, 842 F.2d 755, 757 (5th Cir.1988). The district court committed no error. Smith also asserts that he is entitled to credit against his sentence for time in which the court imposed restrictions upon his liberty. Specifically, he asserts that he should be credited for four periods of time: (1) the 152 days he was released on bond and required to undergo daily urine testing and remain in his residence between 7:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; (2) the 74 days he was confined to a “medical care unit”; (3) the 76 days he was required to spend in Salvation Army halfway house; and (4) the 127 days he spent on probation conditioned upon twice weekly urine testing, alcohol and drug abuse meetings, and travel restrictions.
The district court found that these days were not days spent in custody in connection with the offense or acts for which the sentence was imposed. Title 18, section 3568 requires that a prisoner be given credit for time spent in custody “in connection with the offense or acts for which the sentence was imposed.” “The ‘custody’ contemplated by § 3568 is that characterized by incarceration____” Polakoff v. United States, 489 F.2d 727, 730 (5th Cir.1974).
We have rejected the argument that the time a prisoner spends released on restricted bond must be credited against his sentence. Polakoff, 489 F.2d at 730. The contention that time spent on probation must be credited has also been rejected. United States v. Hawkins, 492 F.2d 771, 772 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1052, 95 S.Ct. 629, 42 L.Ed.2d 647 (1974). Thus, Smith is not entitled to credit for the 152 days he spent on restricted bond or the 127 days he spent on probation.
The time Smith spent in the “medical care unit” while on bond and probation presents a question which has not previously been addressed. It is not clear why Smith was in a medical unit. The district court did order Smith to participate in a drug aftercare program as a condition of probation and, apparently, of bond. The court did not order Smith to a particular program or even to one that required that he be restricted to the clinic premises. Smith states that he could leave the premises only to attend meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. Since participation in a medical unit was a condition of release and designed to benefit Smith, he is not entitled to credit for the time served.
Whether time spent in a halfway house should be credited against a prisoner’s sentence has not been addressed by this Circuit. In Carruthers v. United States, 525 F.2d 843, 844 (8th Cir.1975), the Eighth Circuit held that a parolee released to a halfway house was not entitled to credit for the time spent at the halfway house. Carruthers had alleged that his parole conditions at the halfway house were “more physically restraining than most types of parole.” Id. at 844. The court rejected the allegation as conclusory.
At the halfway house, Smith was required to undergo urinalysis twice a week, call his probation officer once a week, and remain in the Northern District of Texas. These conditions were no more stringent than those of his bond or probation. Applying the reasoning of Polakoff and Car-ruthers, we do not find Smith is entitled to credit for this time.
Finally, Smith contends that the court erred in denying relief without affording him an opportunity to respond to the government’s answer. The rules under § 2255, however, do not permit traverse pleadings unless the government moves for dismissal under Rule 9. See Advisory-Committee Notes to Rule 5 of Rules governing § 2255 cases. The district court did not err and the judgment is AFFIRMED.
. Smith alleged that the Bureau of Prisons had denied his request that he be credited for the time in question. The government did not dispute this allegation. Thus, Smith met the jurisdictional prerequisite of administrative exhaustion. United States v. Brown, 753 F.2d 455, 456 (5th Cir.1985).

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 0