opinion: Isaac WEBER, Appellant, v. J. T. WILLINGHAM, Warden, Appellee.
  No. 8426.
  United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
  Feb. 16, 1966.
  Richard W. Breithaupt, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
  James R. Ward, Topeka, Kan. (Newell A. George, Topeka, Kan., was with him on brief), for appellee.
  Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and SETH, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  The petitioner on conviction of the narcotic laws (21 U.S.C. § 174) was sentenced to a term of 10 years. Section 7237(d), Title 26 U.S.C. provides in substance that upon conviction of offenses under the narcotic laws “the imposition or execution of sentence shall not be suspended, probation shall not be granted” nor shall Section 4202, Title 18 U.S.C. relative to “released on parole after serving one-third” of a sentence be applicable.
  After serving his full sentence with statutory good time allowance as provided in Section 4161, Title 18 U.S.C., petitioner was issued a certificate of mandatory release as provided in Section 4163 “as if on parole” pursuant to Section 4164. Subsequent to his release, he was retaken into custody for violation of the terms of his release. While serving the remainder of his sentence of about 1200 days, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that since by the terms of the statute (§ 7237(d)) he was not subject to being “released on parole after serving one-third” of his term under Section 4202, he was not subject to release “as if on parole” under Section 4164; that the Parole Board was therefore without jurisdiction to retake him by warrant under Section 4205, and he is therefore entitled to be released forthwith.
  The crux of his argument is to the •effect that the Board’s subject matter jurisdiction on parole is found in Section 4202, and since that Section is expressly inapplicable, the Board is without jurisdiction of one who is mandatorily released “as if on parole.”
  The full and complete answer to this contention is that Sections 4164 and 4205 are unaffected by the exclusionary provisions of Section 7237(d). Parole under 4202 is discretionary in the Board. But, release of a prisoner who has served the full term of his sentence, less statutory good time deductions, is mandatory, and he is to “be treated as if released on parole, and shall be subject to all provisions of law relating to the parole of United States prisoners until the expiration of the maximum term or terms for which he was sentenced.” 18 U.S.C. § 4164
  Section 4205 authorizes the Parole Board or a member thereof to issue a warrant for the retaking of any prisoner who has violated his parole within the maximum term or terms for which he was sentenced. These two Sections are sui generis, and the jurisdiction of the Parole Board to revoke the parole of a prisoner who has been mandatorily released under Section 4164 is not dependent upon its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 4202. United States v. Figueroa, 2 Cir., 325 F.2d 418; Conley v. United States Board of Parole, D.C. 221 F.Supp. 445; Cf. Hicks v. Reid, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 109, 194 F.2d 327.
  The statutes are not indefinite or ambiguous with respect to their applicability to this petitioner or the conditions imposed by their terms. The Board did not lack jurisdiction to issue the warrant and retake the prisoner for the service of the remainder of the term of his sentence. The judgment is affirmed.
instruction: 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 appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.