opinion: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. GREENVILLE COTTON OIL CO.
  No. 13867.
  United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
  June 12, 1952.
  Frederick U. Reel, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, Labor Relations Bd., D. P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, Washington, D. C., Labor Relations Bd., for petitioner.
  Allen Clark, Greenville, Tex., O. B. Fisher, Paris, Tex., for respondent.
  Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and STRUM, Circuit Judges.
  HUTCHESON, Chief Judge.
  Upon findings that Respondent had, within the six months’ period immediately preceding the filing of the charge against it, to-wit, on June 18th, 1948, and afterwards, committed unfair labor practices, the Board entered its decision and order requiring Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and dismissing the complaint insofar as it alleges, or depends upon, violations occurring before June 18, 1948.
  Respondent, declining and refusing to comply with the order, the Board is here by petition, seeking its enforcement.
  Taking no issue with the findings, that it had committed unfair labor practices, Respondent insists that they were not committed within six months of the filing of the charge against it, on which it was convicted, and, therefore, the issuance of the complaint, upon which the findings were based, was precluded by the proviso to Section 10(b) of the Amended National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(b).
  As more specifically stated, this is Respondent’s position: The charge, of which Respondent was found guilty, was filed not on Dec. 18, 1948, as claimed by the Board, but on January 4, 1949, and the acts complained of and found against it occurred on June 20th, more than six months before.
  The Board, on its part, urges upon us that the amended charge of January 4th, referred to by respondent was but an amplification and carrying forward of the charge first filed on December 18th, and the filing of that charge stopped the running of the statute.
  We agree with the Board that this is so. Further, if Respondent were right, it would avail it nothing for the evidence shows occurrences of unfair labor practices within six months of January 4th, sufficient to support the Board’s findings and order.
  No ground for setting aside the Board’s order being made to appear, and the evidence appearing fairly to support it, the Board’s order will be enforced as entered,
  . 92 N. L. R. B. 1033.
  . “ * * * 1. Cease and desist from basing reinstatement on the condition, express or implied, that employees humble themselves and forget American Federation of Grain Millers, A. F. L., or any other labor organization; promising employment in return for a favorable vote in a Board election; threatening loss of employment if they vote in favor of the said Union in a Board election; or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.
  “2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
  (a) Post at its Greenville, Texas, plant copies of the notice attached hereto marked Appendix A. * * * ”
  . “ * * * no complaint shall issue based upon any Unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is made. * * * »
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court rule for the government in an issue related to agency acquisition of information (e.g. physical inspections, searches, subpoenas, records, etc)? Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".