Task: songer_direct1

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision, coded as "liberal" or "conservative". Consider liberal to be for government tax claim; for person claiming patent or copyright infringement; for the plaintiff alleging the injury; for economic underdog if one party is clearly an underdog in comparison to the other, neither party is clearly an economic underdog; in cases pitting an individual against a business, the individual is presumed to be the economic underdog unless there is a clear indication in the opinion to the contrary; for debtor or bankrupt; for government or private party raising claim of violation of antitrust laws, or party opposing merger; for the economic underdog in private conflict over securities; for individual claiming a benefit from government; for government in disputes over government contracts and government seizure of property; for government regulation in government regulation of business; for greater protection of the environment or greater consumer protection (even if anti-government); for the injured party in admiralty - personal injury; for economic underdog in admiralty and miscellaneous economic cases. Consider the directionality to be "mixed" if the directionality of the decision was intermediate to the extremes defined above or if the decision was mixed (e.g., the conviction of defendant in a criminal trial was affirmed on one count but reversed on a second count or if the conviction was afirmed but the sentence was reduced). Consider "not ascertained" if the directionality could not be determined or if the outcome could not be classified according to any conventional outcome standards.

PER CURIAM:
This litigation has been before us on a prior occasion, 629 F.2d 786 (2d Cir.1980), where we set out in detail the necessary background. Familiarity with our prior opinion is assumed.
On remand, Judge Sweet held a hearing and once again ruled against the plaintiff Corporación Venezolana de Fomento, (“CVF”). On appeal, it attacks his ruling on several grounds, including his declining to entertain claims based upon the entire body of the Venezuelan Law of Obligations and the Venezuelan penal code, his failure to adjudicate claims against Vintero because of parallel bankruptcy proceedings, his refusal to entertain claims based on CVF’s position as a subrogee of the lending institutions and his holding that CVF was not entitled to recovery under the Venezuelan law of simulation.
There is little doubt that the transactions in question appear on their face to be highly suspicious. Measured against that, however, is the paucity of evidence offered by CVF. Notwithstanding its sweeping allegations, it called none of its employees to testify as to the underlying events with which they should have been familiar. Moreover, it offered in evidence a typewritten “Recapitulation” sustaining Vintero's claims as to the cost of repairs on the ships in question. As a consequence, Judge Sweet found that CVF had failed to identify who was behind the various supposedly fraudulent acts, to show that those acts caused CVF to take steps which led to its losses upon the loan guarantee, or to prove an unjustified inflation of the price of the ships.
We have reviewed the various claims made on appeal and we conclude that Judge Sweet’s findings preclude recovery by CVF against any defendant based on the Venezuelan Law of Obligations, the Venezuelan penal code, the Venezuelan law of vicarious liability, or CVF’s position as a subrogee. CVF’s claim under the Venezuelan law of simulation fails in light of Judge Sweet’s finding that the cost of repairs was greater than the amount drawn down under the letters of credit. Plaintiff attacks that finding as not supported by the record, but it was in fact based on the Vintero “Recapitulation”. While that document may have self-evident weaknesses, CVF had ample opportunity in discovery and at trial to undermine its contents. Instead, it offered it as an exhibit. We see no reason to upset a finding of fact based upon it.
CVF has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate this protracted matter and has chosen for reasons known best to it not to present what would seem to be the most cogent evidence available. It is not entitled to a further opportunity to supply that which it has thus far declined to offer.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision?
A. conservative
B. liberal
C. mixed
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: D