opinion: PER CURIAM:
  This is an appeal from a final judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Hon. Whitmán Knapp, D. J., on November 7, 1973, dismissing the plaintiffs’ second cause of action at the close of their case upon defendant’s motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The named plaintiffs (Unions) instituted this action against Lee National Corporation (Company) on the theory that the Company had forced the Unions to strike on July 16, 1963, thus effectively closing its plant and breaking its contractual commitments to make payments to union members pursuant to an existing welfare agreement.
  The issue on appeal is whether the findings of fact of the court below are “clearly erroneous” within Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). We do not think that the findings are clearly erroneous and therefore affirm the judgment. As the Supreme Court observed in United States v. National Association of Real Estate Boards, 339 U.S. 485, 495-96, 70 S.Ct. 711, 717, 94 L.Ed. 1007 (1950):
  It is not enough that we might give the facts another construction, resolve the ambiguities differently, and find a more sinister cast to actions which the District Court apparently deemed innocent. See United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 342 [70 S.Ct. 177, 94 L.Ed. 150]; United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 394r-395 [68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746]. We are not given those choices, because our mandate is not to set aside findings of fact “unless clearly erroneous.”
  The Unions’ claim that the court below was unduly influenced by an opinion of Judge Mansfield (then sitting in the Southern District) granting the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment is frivolous. Judge Knapp’s references to that opinion were entirely relevant, and the claim that this displayed bias and prevented a trying of the case de novo is totally unfounded. The contention that the court below tried the case on a fraud rather than a breach of contract theory, thus imposing an undue burden of proof on the Unions, is not supported by the record. The language utilized by Judge Mansfield in his prior opinion in this case, which the Unions claim improperly influenced Judge Knapp to apply a fraud theory to the facts, was actually a paraphrase of a portion of a memorandum of law submitted by the Unions to Judge Mansfield.
  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.
  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.
choices: Business or trade association utilities co-ops Professional association - other than law or medicine Legal professional association Medical professional association AFL-CIO union (private) Other private union Private Union - unable to determine whether in AFL-CIO Public employee union- in AFL-CIO (include groups called professional organizations if their role includes bargaining over wages and work conditions) Public Employee Union - not in AFL-CIO Public Employee Union - unable to determine if in AFL-CIO Union pension fund; other union funds (e.g., vacation funds) Other Unclear