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.
The appellants’ property having been condemned by the United States and a jury having awarded them $14,000 as just compensation, the landowners appealed to this Court, which affirmed the judgment. Thereafter a motion for a new trial was filed, based upon a claim of newly discovered evidence, but the United States opposed the motion, maintaining, among other contentions, that the District Court was without power to entertain such motion because the appellants were contemplating a petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari. Such petition was later filed and denied. The District Judge having suggested that to settle any doubt as to his authority in these circumstances to entertain the motion for a new trial, the appellants should petition this Court to grant leave to the District Court to entertain the motion, the present application was filed in this Court.
Without intimating that Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., does not confer upon the District Court full authority to entertain the motion without leave of this Court, but in deference to the District Judge’s suggestion, leave is hereby granted the District Court to consider and dispose of the motion for a new trial now pending before it, and to have such other proceedings as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

Answer: A