opinion: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF MINNESOTA et al., Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE, etc., et al., Appellees.
  No. 71-1507.
  United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
  Submitted April 10, 1972.
  Decided May 3, 1972.
  Craig W. Gagnon, St. Paul, Minn., for appellants.
  Ira Leesfield, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellees.
  Before Mr. Justice CLARK , and VOGEL and LAY, Circuit Judges.
  The Honorable Tom C. Clark, Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by special designation.
  PER CURIAM.
  Plaintiffs-appellants, the Church of Scientology of Minnesota and two of its ministers, appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Honorable Gunnar H. Nordbye, .presiding, granting summary judgment to appellees.
  In November, 1968, appellants received notices of detention and hearing, stating that a device, known as the “Hubbard Electrometer for use in Scientology” that had been manufactured in the United Kingdom and addressed to them, was being detained because it failed to comply with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.
  After an adverse decision at the hearing, appellants brought the instant suit to enjoin appellees from (1) refusing admission of E-Meters into the United States, (2) promulgating any policy or rule or regulation which requires detention of any E-Meter, and (3) from interfering in any way with the shipment of E-Meters addressed to appellants.
  In January, 1971, a case involving similar factual and legal issues was decided by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Church of Scientology of California v. Richardson, 9 Cir., 1971, 437 F.2d 214. There summary judgment in favor of the Secretary which had been granted by the District Court was affirmed on appeal. See, also, United States v. An Article or Device . “Hubbard Electrometer” or “Hubbard E-Meter,” etc., Founding Church of Scientology et al., D.C.D.C., 1971, 333 F.Supp. 357, on remand from Founding Church of Scientology, supra.
  Judge Nordbye examined the literature of the Church of Scientology and found that:
  “ * * * the E-meter as used in the auditing ceremony is an instrument which is used by the Church for certain diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in improving the health of the person audited, usually after Dianetic auditing, and therefore the machine and the use thereof come within the scope of Section 352(f) (1), 21 U.S. C., and [the Court also] finds that the machines transported from the United Kingdom to this country and seized by the defendants do not bear adequate instructions for their use.”
  We have reviewed appellant’s contentions as against the findings of fact and law made by the District Court and are in complete agreement with the District Court. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of Judge Nordbye’s well considered opinion as published, D.C.Minn., 1972, 341 F.Supp. 563. Cf. Church of Scientology of California v. Richardson, supra.
  Affirmed.
  . For a discussion of the religious tenets of the Church of Scientology and the use of the “Hubbard Electrometer” (E-Meter) by the Church see Founding Church of Scientology v. United States, 1969, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 229, 409 F.2d 1146, 1151-1153.
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 "other". Your task is to determine what subcategory of private association best describes this litigant.
choices: Civic, social, fraternal organization Political organizations - Other than political parties Examples: Civil rights focus; Public Interest - broad, civil liberties focus (ACLU) or broad, multi-issue focus (Common Cause, Heritage Foundation, ADA) or single issue - Environmental ENV, Abortion, etc. (prolife, pro-abortion), elderly, consumer interests: Consumer Federation of America, Consumer's Union, National Railroad Passenger Association; PAC Political party Educational organization - Private, non-profit school Educational organization - Association, not individual school - PTA or PTO Religious or non-profit hospital or medical care facility (e.g., nursing home) Other religious organization (includes religious foundations) Charitable or philanthropic organization (including foundations, funds, private museums, private libraries) Other Unclear