Task: songer_weightev

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 any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?" This includes discussions of whether the litigant met the burden of proof. 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".

OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
In April of 1978 Anthony Provenzano submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Justice for all documents indexed under or containing his name. In July of 1980 he appealed to the Attorney General from the failure of the Criminal Division to respond to his request, and was informed that since it would take 25 months before the request could be processed, he could regard his appeal as denied, and bring action in an appropriate federal court.
In December 1981 Provenzano filed the instant action. The government moved for summary judgment, filing in support thereof affidavits of Douglas S. Wood and James C. Felix, which established that the requested records were in a system of records exempted by agency action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2) (1982). The trial court, relying on Painter v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 615 F.2d 689 (5th Cir.1980), and rejecting the authority of Greentree v. United States Customs Service, 674 F.2d 74 (D.C.Cir.1982), granted summary judgment, and Provenzano appealed.
In Porter v. Department of Justice, 717 F.2d 787 (3d Cir.1983), filed simultaneously herewith, we hold that the Privacy Act did not pro tanto repeal the Freedom of Information Act insofar as the latter provides access for requesters to information about themselves. That holding requires that the summary judgment in this case be reversed.
The judgment appealed from will be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Opinion on rehearing, 722 F.2d 36.

Question: Did the factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D