Task: songer_stpolicy

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 any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the interpretation of state or local law, executive order, administrative regulation, doctrine, or rule of procedure by the court favor the appellant?" 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".

PER CURIAM:
Paul Walton appeals from his conviction for refusing to submit to induction, in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. We affirm.
In June 1968, Walton was classified IA. He did not appeal this classification. However, in February 1970, he requested a Form 150 (conscientious-objector application). He completed the form and returned it to his local board on March 3, 1970, with a letter which read: “I would at this time like to place my case on appeal for classification I-O.”
The board rejected the conscientious-objector application June 24, 1970, and notified Walton of his right to appeal within 30 days. He did nothing until September 1970, when he refused induction.
Walton now says that his letter of March 3, 1970, should be treated as a notice of appeal from the board’s decision of June 24, 1970, three months later. We agree with the district court’s refusal to treat an anticipatory letter as a notice of appeal. A notice of appeal after a decision is entitled to liberal construction. A purported notice of appeal in advance of decision is not entitled to any construction. It is a nullity.
Affirmed.

Question: Did the interpretation of state or local law, executive order, administrative regulation, doctrine, or rule of procedure by the court favor the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D