Task: songer_r_bus

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 "private business and its executives". 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.

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge.
These are four appeals from judgments of the District Court dismissing complaints in civil actions. The actions were brought by natives of China who arrived in the United States at various dates seeking admission. They were paroled into the United States in exclusion proceedings. Thereafter they were ordered excluded and deported to the place whence they came, which was Hong Kong. They claim that deportation to Hong Kong is in fact deportation to Communist China and that if sent there they will be subject to physical persecution. They seek the benefit of Section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides:
“The Attorney General is authorized to withhold deportation of any alien within the United States to any country in which in his opinion the alien would be subject to physical persecution and for such period of time as he deems to be necessary for such reason.”
The Government says the appellants are not “within the United States” and therefore the Attorney General has no power under the statute to withhold their deportation. The question before us is whether he has that power. We are not concerned with how he should exercise the power if he has it. We have to decide merely whether he has it.
Section 212(d) (5) of the 1952 Act provides in pertinent part:
“The Attorney General may in his discretion parole into the United, States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe for emergent reasons or for reasons deemed strictly in the public interest any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien * * (Emphasis ours.)
Thus it is clear that under the Act an alien may be paroled into the United States as well as admitted to it. In either event he is, in the statutory terms, in the United States. We think an alien paroled into the United States within the meaning of Section 212(d) (5) is within the United States within the meaning of Section 243(h). Therefore as to him the Attorney General has a discretionary power to withhold deportation.
The Attorney General argues that there is a difference between excluding an alien and deporting him and that these aliens are to be excluded. But the very sentence of the statute which provides for excluding aliens uses the word “deported”. The concluding clause in that sentence is “shall be allowed to enter or shall be excluded and deported.” And the sentence which provides for the return of excluded aliens on the vessel bringing them uses the words “deported” and “deportation”. The basic sentence is: “Any alien * * * who is excluded * * * shall be immediately deported * * * And the proviso in that sentence is “unless the Attorney General, in an individual case, in his discretion, concludes that immediate deportation is not practicable or proper.” The regulations reflect the same idea. For example, Section 237.1, Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (1952) speaks of “The immediate deportation of an excluded alien”. The distinction relevant to Section 243 is between aliens who are, legally speaking, in the United States, by entry or parole, and those who, legally speaking, are not within the borders.
That the predecessor section to Section 243(h) of the 1952 Act, which was Section 23 of the 1950 Act, applied to an alien who was excluded was settled by Ng Lin Chong v. McGrath. Section 243(a) of the 1952 Act applies to aliens “in the United States”. We think that section gives the Attorney General discretion in respect to the country to which he will order aliens deported, whether they are legally in the United States by entry or by parole.
The cases will be remanded to the District Court with instructions to enter declaratory judgments in accord with this opinion.
. Appellant Lam Wing was paroled after an initial exclusion order.
. 66 Stat. 214, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1253(b).
. 66 Stat. 188, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(d) (5).
. The Act contains a number of provisions relating to aliens within the United States. See See. 237(a), 66 Stat. 201, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a); Sec. 237(b), 66 Stat. 201, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(b); Sec. 262, 66 Stat. 224, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1302; Sec. 265, 66 Stat. 225, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1305; Sec. 360(a), 66 Stat. 273, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1503 (a).
. Sec. 236(a), 66 Stat. 200, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1226(a).
. Sec. 237(a), 66 Stat. 201, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a).
. 64 Stat. 1010.
. D.C.Cir.I952, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 131, 202 F.2d 316.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 0