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.

ORDER
This appeal, perfected from an order of the district court striking the name of John W. Collis from the rolls of attorneys admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, has been submitted for consideration pursuant to Rule 3(e), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
Respondent was disbarred by the Kentucky Court of Appeals (now the Supreme Court of Kentucky), Kentucky Bar Association v. Collis, 535 S.W.2d 95 (Ky.Ct.App. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1049, 96 S.Ct. 775, 46 L.Ed.2d 637 (1976), and a collateral attack on said state disbarment proceeding was denied in Collis v. Reed et al., 413 F.Supp. 507 (E.D.Ky.1976), affirmed, Getty v. Reed et al., 547 F.2d 971 (6th Cir. 1977).
On January 20, 1976, the district court issued an order requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be removed from the bar of that court, and after intervening proceedings and a full evidentiary hearing the disbarment order from which this appeal was perfected was entered, and this appeal followed. It is clear from the record that the respondent was afforded a full measure of due process in a scrupulously fair proceeding, and that the findings of the district court were based on uncontroverted facts. It was the district court’s conclusion that respondent had “engaged in unethical and unprofessional conduct of the degree and with the frequency that [justified] the striking of his name from the rolls of attorneys admitted to the practice in [the] District in lieu of any lesser sanction,” and since no abuse of discretion is apparent from the record, the district court’s determination is not open to review. Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51, 37 S.Ct. 377, 61 L.Ed. 585 (1917). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is affirmed.

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

Answer: A