opinion: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl Albert BEDUNA, Defendant-Appellant.
  No. 16610.
  United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
  April 27, 1966.
  Kent J. Vana, Grand Rapids, Mich., for appellant.
  James W. Eardley, Grand Rapids, Mich. (Harold D. Beaton, U. S. Atty., Grand Rapids, Mich., on the brief), for appellee.
  Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and EDWARDS, Circuit J udges.
  PER CURIAM.
  Defendant-appellant was found guilty by a jury of forging an indorsement on a United States Treasury check in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 495 and was sentenced to a prison term of five years. His defense was that he had a note signed by the payee of the cheek giving him permission to cash it. The payee testified that he had not given any such permission and had not signed such a note. The note of authorization was not introduced in evidence- during the trial.
  Ten days after he was sentenced, defendant filed a motion for a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence, claiming that his wife had found the handwritten note which gave him permission to cash the check.
  At defendant’s request the district court appointed a handwriting expert at the expense of the Government to determine, if possible, whether either defendant or his wife was the author of the note. The theory of the district court was that if neither defendant nor his wife had written the note, presentation of such a note at the trial could have affected the outcome and the defendant would be entitled to a new trial. The handwriting expert rendered an opinion to the effect that the note in question was written by defendant and not by the payee of the check. The district court thereupon denied the motion for a new trial and defendant has appealed.
  In this court defendant relies upon Rule 33, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which authorizes the district court to grant a new trial to a defendant “if required in the interest of justice,” contending that he should be granted a new trial and that the jury should be permitted to determine the authenticity of the note of authorization.
  The granting or refusing of a new trial upon grounds of newly discovered evidence rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. A new trial will not be granted unless such evidence probably would bring about a different result. United States v. Lewis, 338 F.2d 137 (C.A. 6), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 978, 85 S.Ct. 1342, 14 L.Ed.2d 272, and cases therein cited.
  We hold that the district judge did not abuse his discretion, in concluding that the introduction of the note and the testimony of the handwriting expert probably would not bring about a different result in this case.
  The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
  Appreciation is expressed to Mr. Kent J. Vana of the bar of Grand Rapids, Michigan, for his services as court-appointed counsel for defendant both in this court and in the district 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