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 diversity action appellant appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing with prejudice appellant’s complaint against appellee United Security Life Insurance Company, referred to herein as United.
The pivotal issue litigated in the district court was the liability of United to appellant on a written contract of guaranty in the form of a letter, allegedly executed on behalf of United by its former president, W. L. DeLong. More specifically, the Court was required to decide whether DeLong had actual or apparent authority to bind United by the guaranty upon which appellant’s claim for relief is premised. Judge Henley, in a soundly reasoned opinion, persuasively demonstrated that DeLong lacked such authority. 286 F.Supp. 173, 176-182 (E.D.Ark.1968).
We reject as untenable appellant’s contention that the evidence established as a matter of law that the instrument under consideration constituted a valid and binding obligation of United, and that consequently the district court’s findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous.
We have canvassed the voluminous record and are convinced that the evidence clearly supports the judgment of dismissal. Indeed, we find scant, if any, probative evidence to support appellant’s claim. The district court was fully justified in finding on the evidence presented that DeLong had no authority to bind United by the instrument sued on. Certainly, analysis of the entire record does not leave us with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948).
The judgment 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: D