opinion: Ralph MARRERA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Calvin EDWARDS, Respondent-Appellee.
  No. 86-1541.
  United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
  Submitted Feb. 17, 1987.
  Decided March 5, 1987.
  Juanita S. Temple, Detroit, Mich., for respondent-appellee.
  Ralph Marrera, pro se.
  Before MARTIN and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge.
  ORDER
  This case has been referred to a panel of the Court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and the parties’ briefs, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not necessary. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
  Petitioner is serving consecutive ten year sentences at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan, for the robbery of a Purolator armored car. Through this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, petitioner seeks a sentence credit for 1,573 days allegedly spent “in custody” while out on bond. His petition was denied by the district court because the conditions of his bond were not “tantamount to incarceration”, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3568 if a sentence credit is to be given. Following the subsequent denial of his motion for relief from judgment, petitioner appealed.
  According to the record, the time petitioner spent on bond was not subject to any restrictions tantamount to incarceration. “Custody” as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 3568 for purposes of a sentence credit is distinctly different from the definition used in the habeas corpus statutes. Because petitioner seeks a sentence credit, he is bound by the definition of custody used in Section 3568; that definition requires physical incarceration. United States v. Robles, 563 F.2d 1308, 1309 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 925, 98 S.Ct. 1491, 56 L.Ed.2d 416 (1978); Ortega v. United States, 510 F.2d 412, 413 (10th Cir.1975); United States v. Peterson, 507 F.2d 1191, 1192 (D.C.Cir.1974); United States v. Hoskow, 460 F.Supp. 929, 930 (E.D.Mich.1978). Petitioner’s physical and mental condition following his illness, as well as his time in and out of the hospital and the nursing home, were not conditions imposed by the court. Because these periods of time cannot be considered akin to physical incarceration, this time need not be credited toward his sentence.
  The questions upon which this case depends are so unsubstantial as not to require further argument. Rule 9(d)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
  ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT.
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.
  Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.
choices: not Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachussets Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South South Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming Virgin Puerto District Guam not Panama