Task: songer_genstand

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the agency articulate the appropriate general standard?" This question includes whether the agency interpreted the statute "correctly". The courts often refer here to the rational basis test, plain meaning, reasonable construction of the statute, congressional intent, etc. This issue also includes question of which law applies or whether amended law vs law before amendment applies. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the court’s order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as moot filed July 24, 1990, and the letters dated August 6 and 13, 1990, in response thereto; the supplemental motion to dismiss as moot; the motion to dismiss appeal and the response thereto; and the motions to amend, it is
ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the unopposed motion to dismiss as moot be granted. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the district court order of May 4, 1990, 737 F.Supp. 100, be vacated. See United States v. Miller, 685 F.2d 123 (5th Cir.1982); Lettsome v. Waggoner, 672 F.Supp. 858, 861 n. 4 (D.V.I.1987). Cf. United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 106, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950). As to the other district court orders which Brunwasser requests be vacated, the court finds that the reasons which generally support vacatur are not present in the other orders. See Munsingwear, 340 U.S. at 39, 71 S.Ct. at 106. Also, in the unlikely event that the issue arises in another case, Brunwasser would be free to raise the fact that his contentions were never addressed in an appeal. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Gibson’s remaining motions be dismissed as moot.
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir. Rule 15.

Question: Did the agency articulate the appropriate general standard? This question includes whether the agency interpreted the statute "correctly". The courts often refer here to the rational basis test, plain meaning, reasonable construction of the statute, congressional intent, etc. This issue also includes question of which law applies or whether amended law vs law before amendment applies.
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D