Case Name: Roland BUZENIUS, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, United Paperworkers International Union; United Paperworkers International Union, Local 1033, Intervenors
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1999-10-13
Citations: 191 F.3d 641
Docket Number: No. 96-5139
Parties: Roland BUZENIUS, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, United Paperworkers International Union; United Paperworkers International Union, Local 1033, Intervenors.
Judges: Before: SILER and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; and HULL, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 191
Pages: 641–642

Head Matter:
Roland BUZENIUS, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, United Paperworkers International Union; United Paperworkers International Union, Local 1033, Intervenors.
No. 96-5139.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Decided and Filed: Oct. 13, 1999
John C. Scully, National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation, Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Deborah E. Shrager, Margaret Ann Gaines, National Labor Relations Board, Appellate Court Branch, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
James B. Coppess, AFL-CIO Legal Department, Washington, D.C., for Interve-nors.
Before: SILER and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; and HULL, District Judge.
The Honorable Thomas G. Hull, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
OPINION
BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge.
This case is before us again on remand from the Supreme Court, see United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Buzenius, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 442, 142 L.Ed.2d 397 (1998), for reconsideration in light of its decision in Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, Inc., 525 U.S. 33, 119 S.Ct. 292, 142 L.Ed.2d 242 (1998).
Respondent has moved for dismissal of the Petition for Review pursuant to Marquez. Petitioner Buzenius has not opposed this motion. Therefore, without expressing any opinion whatsoever on whether this case may be distinguishable from the Marquez decision, we DISMISS the Petition for Review.