opinion: PER CURIAM:
  This suit was filed in the District Court to obtain a mandatory injunction requiring the University officials to permit a large meeting of approximately one thousand persons of the National Lawyers Guild, a non-campus group, to be held at the student union February 16-19, 1973. Presumably, it was also to test the constitutional validity of certain Board of Regents’ rules requiring co-sponsorship by an Assistant Dean of the appropriate college (here, the College of Law) for a non-campus group. No such co-sponsorship was sought or denied.
  The time for the meeting has long since gone by and there is no indication that there now is, or will be, a real case or controversy as to which these plaintiffs have adequate standing to challenge the co-sponsorship requirement or the need for injunctive relief. The case as posed is moot. The judgment of the District Court is therefore vacated and the case remanded to dismiss as moot so the case will not spawn any precedential consequences. United States v. Mun-singwear, Inc., 1950, 340 U.S. 36, 71 S. Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36; St. Pierre v. United States, 1943, 319 U.S. 41, 63 S.Ct. 910, 87 L.Ed. 1199; Troy State University v. Dickey, 5 Cir., 1968, 402 F.2d 515, 516-517; New Left Educ. Project v. Board of Regents, 5 Cir., 1973, 472 F.2d 218, 221; Lebus, Regional Director v. Seafarers’ Int’l Union, 5 Cir., 1968, 398 F.2d 281, 283; United States v. West Gulf Maritime Ass’n., 5 Cir., 1972, 460 F.2d 1231. And see especially our very recent decision United States Servicemen’s Fund v. Killeen Independent School District, 5 Cir., 1974, 693 F.2d 489.
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.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private organization or association", specifically "business, trade, professional, or union (BTPU)". Your task is to determine what subcategory of private association best describes this litigant.