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 assertion of federal power in federalism cases; "not ascertained" for conflict between states; for attorney; for the validity of challenged selective service regulation; or for the government interest in dispute with someone attempting to resist induction; for the authority of the challenged official in challenge to magistrates or referees; for defendant in Indian law - criminal; for the claim of the Indian or tribal rights in Indian law; for federal or state authority in Indian law vs state and federal authority; for interest of US or US firms when opposed by foreign firms or government; for US government if opposed to either US or foreign business in international law; for government regulation in immigration 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.
The appellant appeals from a decree of the District Court which was entered January 23, 1953, and urges as grounds therefor points and contentions which were heard and disposed of in West Coast Life Ins. Co. v. Merced Irr. Dist., 9 Cir., 114 F.2d 654; Thomas v. El Dorado Irr. Dist., 9 Cir., 126 F.2d 922; Mason v. El Dorado Irr. Dist., 9 Cir., 144 F.2d 189; Mason v. Banta Carbona Irr. Dist., 9 Cir., 149 F.2d 49; United States v. Bekins, 304 U.S. 27, 58 S.Ct. 811, 82 L.Ed. 1137; and Mason v. Paradise Irr. Dist., 326 U.S. 536, 66 S.Ct. 290, 90 L.Ed. 287. No new points or contentions are present here. The same appellant was the Mason named in three of the cases cited.
Upon the authority of these cases, the decision and judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Indeed, the appeal is so unsubstantial and frivolous as to suggest that it was taken merely for delay. The court has seriously considered awarding damages against the appellant for the delay, as provided in Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1912. Cf. Slaker v. O’Connor, 278 U.S. 188, 191, 49 S.Ct. 158, 73 L.Ed. 258; In re Midland United Co., 3 Cir., 141 F.2d 692; Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Feutz, 8 Cir., 182 F.2d 752; Fern Gold Mining Co. v. Murphy, 9 Cir., 7 F.2d 613. Here the persons entitled thereto have been deprived of the $54,000 paid into court for approximately a year and a half. They have lost the use of that sum and their damages are substantial. Yet because the court has heretofore failed to apply § 1912 in many cases where it might have been invoked, we have decided to hold our hand here, letting this reference to the statute serve as notice of the possibility that it may be applied in the future.

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

Answer: D