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.
In this action in the District Court the taxpayer sought a refund of income taxes for the year 1945 by reason of a net operating loss carry-back from the year 1947. The District Court denied the refund on the ground that the taxpayer was not entitled to a net operating loss carry-back. We reversed on the ground that the taxpayer was entitled to a net operating loss carry-back.
The mandate issued in this case on October 30, 1958, states, “On consideration whereof, It is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed, and the case remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in the opinion herein.” The opinion is reported as Penton v. United States, 6 Gir., 259 F.2d 536.
The District Judge in a Memorandum filed in the District Court on January 29, 1959, states, “Being unable to reconcile the law as stated by the Court of Appeals and the facts as stipulated by the parties, with an allowance of the refund, this Court requests a clear direction as to what the order on the mandate should require.”
The legal issue in the case has been decided. We think it is clear from the opinion, which must be treated as a part of the mandate, that as a matter of law the taxpayer is entitled to a net operating loss carry-back from the year 1947, which ruling is not open for reconsideration by the District Court, even though it may differ from rulings in other circuits to which reference is made. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Hall, 9 Cir., 225 F.2d 349, Note 10, at pages 370-372, certiorari denied, Mallonee Bucklin & Fergus v. Federal Home Loan Bank, 350 U.S. 968, 76 S.Ct. 438, 100 L.Ed. 840, rehearing denied 351 U. S. 921, 76 S.Ct. 708, 100 L.Ed. 1452, appeal dismissed, Long Beach Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Federal Home Loan Bank, 351 U.S. 916, 76 S.Ct. 709, 100 L.Ed. 1449. A request for clarification of the mandate will not be considered by this Court as a petition for rehearing, the filing time for which has long since expired. Hines v. Royal Indemnity Co., 6 Cir., 253 F.2d 111, 113-114.
The amount of the net operating loss carry-back from 1947 was not adjudicated by the District Court in its ruling dismissing the action. It appears to be stipulated. If the District Court approves and accepts the stipulation, a judgment in accordance with the views heretofore expressed in our opinion can be promptly entered. Strimling v. Stone, 8 Cir., 194 F.2d 920.
Request for clarification of the mandate is denied, except as herein indicated.

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

Answer: A