opinion: GAMBLE ENTERPRISES, Inc., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
  No. 11405.
  United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
  April 10, 1953.
  Supplemental Order April 21, 1953.
  Jones, Day, Cockley & Reavis, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner.
  Geo. J. Bott, A. Norman Somers, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
  Herschcl Kriger, Canton, Ohio, and Henry Kaiser, Washington, D. C., for in-tervenor.
  PER CURIAM.
  In pursuance of a Mandate from the Supreme Court of the United States, after the announcement of its decision, 345 U.S. 117, 73 S.Ct. 560, reversing our judgment of May 9, 1952, 196 F.2d 61,
  It is now ordered that our judgment and order are set aside and held for naught and the cause is remanded to the National Labor Relations Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion and mandate of the Supreme Court.
  Supplemental Order
  PER CURIAM.
  Our order of April 10, 1953 remanding the cause to the National Labor Relations Board for further proceedings, 202 F,2d 954, is set aside and the following order is to be entered.
  In pursuance of a mandate from the Supreme Court of the United States, after the announcement of its decision reversing our judgment of May 9, 1952, 196 F.2d 61, it is now ordered and adjudged that our judgment entered in the said cause on the 9th day of May, 1952, is in conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, 345 U.S. 117, 73 S.Ct. 560, and its mandate therein is
  Reversed and the petition to set aside the order of the National Labor Relations Board dismissing the complaint against Local No. 24 American Federation of Musicians is denied and the said order, is affirmed.
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 conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion. 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".