372 U.S. 10, 83 S.Ct. 671, 9 L.Ed.2d 547 (1963), the Supreme Court recognized another exception to the general rule prohibiting district court jurisdiction over Board representation proceedings. Plaintiff acknowledges that this exception, which relates to international issues, is not applicable here. Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction at 6. 3 . See also NLRB v. Frazier, 966 F.2d 812, 815 (D.N.J.1992) (citing with approval Interstate Dress Carriers). 4 . The Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and District of Columbia Circuits have also employed a “clear and mandatory" test. See e.g. Council of Prison Locals v. Brewer, 735 F.2d 1497, 1501 (D.C.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); New York Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. NLRB, 708 F.2d
holding that the statute is mandatory holding in part that the leedom v kyne exception applies only when the board violates a clear and mandatory provision of the act holding that the rolling provision applies only to the entity that manufactured the replacement part holding that the mandatory minimum sentencing provision applies if the defendant knew that his accomplice possessed a firearm and used it during the commission of the crime holding that when no statutory exception applies  the district court lacks the authority to impose a sentence less than the statutory mandatory minimum