Task: songer_whlaws

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court's discussion of which state's laws should control their ruling in the case support the position taken by 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.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant was convicted of crime in the District of Columbia and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment which he is presently serving in the Reformatory at Lorton, Virginia. He complains of errors on the trial of the case and alleges that he has made motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate sentence in the sentencing court and that this motion has been denied. It is well settled that errors of the sort of which appellant complains can be corrected only by appeal and that the writ of habeas corpus may not be used in lieu of appeal. Apart from this, it is equally well settled that habeas corpus may not be availed of by a prisoner where motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 has been denied, unless it appears that such motion “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention”; and nothing of the sort appears here. As pointed out in Rice v. Clemmer, 242 F.2d 870, “The fact that decision was rendered against him on the motion means merely that he failed to convince the court that he was entitled to prevail, not that the motion was ‘inadequate or ineffective to test the legality ox his detention’. The legality of the detention was tested by the motion and was found proper. There is nothing to indicate that the motion did not provide an adequate test.” The petition for habeas corpus was properly denied. Meyers v. Welch, 4 Cir., 179 F.2d 707, 708; Meyers v. United States, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 320, 181 F.2d 802; Bozell v. Welch, 4 Cir., 203 F.2d 711.
Affirmed.

Question: Did the court's discussion of which state's laws should control their ruling in the case support the position taken by the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D