opinion: MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION, on behalf of its individually named members, and Charles H. Maher, Jr., an individual resident of the City and County of Denver, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a municipal corporation, Mile Hi Cablevision Associates, Ltd., a limited partnership composed of Daniels and Associates Partners Limited; American Television and Communications Corporation, a Delaware corporation; and Mile-Hi Cablevision, Inc., a Colorado corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
  No. 83-2145.
  United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
  Jan. 15, 1985.
  Rehearing Denied Feb. 25,1985.
  Clint Bolick, of Mountain States Legal Foundation, Denver, Colo., for plaintiffs-appellants.
  Stephen H. Kaplan, City Atty., George J. Cerrone, Jr., Steven J. Coon, and Andrew L. Weber, Asst. City Attys., Denver, Colo., for defendant-appellee City and County of Denver.
  William C. McClearn, Joseph W. Halpern, and Elizabeth A. Phelan of Holland & Hart, Denver, Colo., for defendants-appellees Mile Hi Cablevision Associates, Ltd. and Mile-Hi Cablevision, Inc.
  Before BARRETT, SETH and McKAY, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  This three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 10(e). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
  This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ “Motion to Remand to District Court with Instructions to Dismiss the Complaint as Moot and to Vacate Decision of District Court.” The basis for this motion is plaintiffs’ argument that the governmental actions complained of below have been satisfied by intervening state court pronouncements relating to the subject cable television permit and contract. We are not convinced, however, that the instant appeal has been rendered moot by the state court proceedings.
  Nevertheless, we do consider plaintiffs’ papers filed in this court as compelling evidence of their lack of willingness to fully contest the issues on appeal. Therefore, we construe their motion to remand as a request for voluntary dismissal of the appeal under Fed.R.App.P. 42(b). As so construed, the motion is hereby granted.
  DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
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