opinion: LEISHMAN v. ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO.
  No. 9970.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
  May 26, 1942.
  Rehearing Denied July 25, 1942.
  See also, D.C., 36 F.Supp. 804.
  John Flam, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
  Gibson Yungblut, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Leonard S. Lyon, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
  Before MATHEWS, HANEY, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.
  MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.
  Appellant brought an action against ap-pellee for infringement of a patent. Ap-pellee answered, trial was had, findings of fact and conclusions of law were made and filed, and judgment was entered dismissing the action. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
  The question is whether we have jurisdiction of the appeal. Though not raised by the parties, the question is here and has to be decided. City and County of San Francisco v. McLaughlin, 9 Cir., 9 F.2d 390; Credit Bureau of San Diego v. Petrasich, 9 Cir., 97 F.2d 65, 67; Crockett v. United States, 9 Cir., 125 F.2d 547, 549.
  Section 8(c) of the Act of February 13, 1925, c. 229, 43 Stat. 940, 28 U.S. C.A. § 230, provides: “No writ of error or appeal intended to bring any judgment or dncree before a circuit court of appeals for review shall be allowed unless application therefor be duly made within three months after the entry of such judgment or decree.” With respect to appeals from judgments in civil actions, rule 73(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c, provides: ■“When an appeal is permitted by law from a district court to a circuit court of appeals and within the time prescribed, a party may appeal from a judgment by filing with the district court a notice of appeal.” The time referred to in rule 73(a) is that prescribed in § 8(c), namely, three months .after entry of judgment.
  The judgment in this case was entered ■on May 1, 1941. Notice of appeal was filed on September 4, 1941 — four months and three days after entry of judgment. We •called this to counsel’s attention and permitted briefs to be filed on the question of the timeliness of the appeal.
  Appellant, in his brief, invokes the rule that, where a petition for a rehearing, a motion for a new trial or a motion to vacate, amend or modify a judgment is seasonably made and is entertained, the time for appeal does not begin to run until the motion is disposed of. This rule, however, avails appellant nothing; for, in this case, there was no petition for a rehearing, no motion for a new trial, no motion to vacate, amend or modify the judgment.
  On May 28, 1941 — 27 days after entry of judgment — appellant moved the court to amend and supplement its findings and conclusions. The motion was denied on June 9, 1941. Appellant would have us treat the motion as a petition for a rehearing, a motion for a new trial or a motion to vacate, amend or modify the judgment, and so would have us hold that the time for appeal did not begin to run until the motion was denied. This we cannot do; for the motion was not, and did not purport to be, a petition for a rehearing, a motion for a new trial or a motion to vacate, amend or modify the judgment.
  The motion was made under rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides: “Upon motion of a party made not later than 10 days after entry of judgment the court may amend its findings or make additional findings and may amend the judgment accordingly.” The motion in this case, though not made within the time prescribed in rule 52(b), was made within that time as enlarged by an order obtained by appellant pursuant to rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order, however, did not extend the time for taking an appeal and could not have done so; for rule 6(b) expressly forbids any such extension.
  Rule 52(b) provides, as shown above, that the court may, upon motion of a party, amend its judgment as well as its findings. The motion in this case was not, however, a motion to amend the judgment. It was merely a motion to amend and supplement the findings and conclusions. Appellant cites no case, and we have found none, holding that such a motion extends the time for taking an appeal.
  The cases cited in appellant’s brief (Thomas Day Co. v. Doble Laboratories, 9 Cir., 41 F.2d 51; The Astorian, 9 Cir., 57 F.2d 85; Neely v. Merchants Trust Co., 3 Cir., 110 F.2d 525; Fiske v. Wallace, 8 Cir., 115 F.2d 1003) are readily distinguishable from the case at bar. There was, in the Thomas Day case, a petition for rehearing; in The Astorian, a similar petition; in the Neely case, a motion to vacate the judgment; in the Fiske case, a motion to amend the judgment. In the case at bar, there was no petition for a rehearing, no motion to vacate or amend the judgment.
  We conclude that the time within which appellant could have taken a valid appeal expired on August 1, 1941 (three months after entry of judgment); that the appeal actually taken — on September 4, 1941 — was not a valid appeal; and that we have no jurisdiction thereof. Von Holt v. Carter, 9 Cir., 56 F.2d 61, 63.
  Appeal dismissed.
  Idaho Irrigation District v. Gooding, 9 Cir., 285 F. 453, 461; Thomas Day Co. v. Doble Laboratories, 9 Cir., 41 F. 2d 51 (cited by appellant); The Astorian, 9 Cir., 57 F.2d 85 (cited by appellant); Mitchell v. Maurer, 9 Cir., 67 F.2d 286.
  Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Banque Beige, 9 Cir., 298 F. 446; Davis v. Livingston, 9 Cir., 13 F.2d 605; Janus v. United States, 9 Cir., 38 F.2d 431.
  Southern Pacific Co. v. Sartoris, 9 Cir., 27 F.2d 852; Neely v. Merchants Trust Co., 3 Cir., 110 F.2d 525 (cited by appellant).
  Fiske v. Wallace, 8 Cir., 115 F.2d 1003 (cited by appellant).
  United States v. Steinberg, 2 Cir., 100 F.2d 124.
  See cases cited in footnotes 1-5.
  Rule 6(b) provides: “When by these rules * * * an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may, at any time in its discretion * * * order the period enlarged if application therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order * * *; but it may not enlarge * * * the period for taking an appeal as provided by law.”
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.