Task: songer_r_natpr

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 "natural persons". 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.

SETH, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Tenth Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
The defendant Alfonso Quintana, an alien, pled guilty to a charge of violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) and § 5871, for the possession of a sawed-off shotgun. Before being sentenced the defendant filed a Motion for Judicial Recommendation against Deportation apparently in reliance on 8 U.S.C. § 1251(b). The trial court during the sentencing proceedings denied the motion. In sentencing the court said:
“I take the position in most of these cases that the Immigration Department is in a far better position, far better, to determine as to whether or not an individual should be deported than is this court, and I leave it up to them in practically every instance. So your motion for recommendation against deportation will be denied.”
The trial judge did not state whether he did, or whether he could, “consider” the motion on its merits, and did not further describe his reasons for its denial.
The defendant on this appeal argues only as to the denial of the motion, and that the trial court should have “considered” it on the merits. It is urged that in not doing so the court abused its discretion.
We construe the trial court’s statement, above quoted, to mean that it was not necessary under the applicable statute that the merits of the motion be considered. The crime to which the defendant pled guilty is one listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(14) as one which specifically provides for deportation as do others listed in § 1251(a).
Defendant, as mentioned, seeks a recommendation by the judge binding on the INS pursuant to § 1251(b) that he not be deported. Defendant urges a construction of the statute on deportations to permit the trial judge to make a recommendation against deportation although his crime is one not mentioned in the statute as subject to such a recommendation.
In 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(4) it is provided that on order of the Attorney General an alien may be deported who is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (with certain conditions). The statute in another subsection, § 1251(a)(14), provides for deportation if convicted, as was appellant, for possessing or carrying a sawed-off shotgun.
The section sought to be applied by the defendant, and which provides for a binding recommendation by the judge against deportation, is § 1251(b). This subsection states in part:
“The provisions of subsection (a)(4) of this section respecting the deportation of an alien convicted of a crime or crimes [involving moral turpitude] shall not apply ... if the court sentencing such alien for such crime shall make, at the time of first imposing judgment or passing sentence ... a recommendation to the Attorney General that such alien not be de-ported_ The provisions of this subsection shall not apply in the case of any alien who is charged with being deporta-ble ... under subsection (a)(ll) of this section [drug offenses].”
Thus the subsection providing for a recommendation includes specifically only crimes involving moral turpitude. It also specifically excludes only drug offenses. The defendant does not seek to be included in the moral turpitude category, but urges that the section by its exclusion of drug offenses is intended to thereby include all other deportable offenses listed in § 1251(a). Hence, the trial judge should have considered on the merits his motion for a recommendation in sentencing for the sawed-off shotgun offense.
Section 1251(a)(4) is the only subsection listing deportable crimes which is referred to in § 1251(b) authorizing the recommendation. The construction of the relationship between the two subsections must start with the proposition that the offenses in § 1251(a)(4) are the only ones subject to a recommendation. They are the only ones mentioned affirmatively in the statute.
The exclusion only of drug offenses, added in 1956 as the last sentence of § 1251(b), has no legislative history other than Congress’ displeasure with decisions which permitted recommendations in drug offense cases. Thus with the lack of any vagueness or uncertainty created by the addition of the exception as to drugs the original clarity remained. There is presented no basis for a construction of the subsection to include all other deportable offenses. One group — crimes involving moral turpitude — was the only subject of the original subsection with the detailed procedure for a recommendation as to it. To this the drug exception was added.
Statutes relating to deportation of aliens are liberally construed in favor of the alien concerned as the deportation penalty can be harsh. Fong Haw Tan v. Phe lan, 333 U.S. 6, 68 S.Ct. 374, 92 L.Ed. 433 (1948). However, the application of this doctrine in the case before us does not lead to the construction sought by appellant.
The Ninth Circuit in Jew Ten v. I.N.S., 307 F.2d 832 (1962), considered the same argument as here advanced by the appellant including the impact of the 1956 exclusion of drug offenses. The court there reached the same conclusion as herein expressed — the recommendation provision is applicable only to offenses described in § 1251(a)(4) and no other deportable offenses. See also Oviawe v. I.N.S., 853 F.2d 1428 (7th Cir.1988); Delgado-Ckavez v. I.N.S., 765 F.2d 868 (9th Cir.1985).
In United States v. Gonzales, 582 F.2d 1162 (7th Cir.1978), the court upheld the trial court’s refusal to consider a recommendation where the offense was not within § 1251(a)(4). There the offense was drug related and thus, of course, expressly excluded, but the issue as to whether the recommendation need be considered at all by the trial judge would there be the same as in the case before us as to non-included offenses.
We have quoted above the words of the trial judge at sentencing on this issue, and again, we construe it as a statement that the suggestion that a recommendation be made did not need to be considered on its merits.
AFFIRMED.

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

Answer: 0