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.
  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 business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "unclear". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto industry chemical industry drug industry food industry oil & gas industry clothing & textile industry electronic industry alcohol and tobacco industry other unclear