Task: songer_othappth

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to some threshold issue at the appeals court level. That is, it is conceded that the trial court properly reached the merits, but the issue is whether, in spite of that concession, the appellant has a right to an appeals court decision on the merits (e.g., the issue became moot after the trial).  The issue is: "Did the court refuse to rule on the merits of the appeal because of some threshhold issue other than timeliness or frivolousness that was relevant on appeal but not at the original trial? (e.g., the case became moot after the original trial)" 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.
_ Respondent moves to dismiss this appeal because the petitioner has not been aggrieved by any order, issued by it, to which tbe petitioner was a party. Section 25(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78y (a), 15 U.S.C.A. § 78y (a) confers jurisdiction upon the Circuit Court 0f Appeals to entertain a petition to grant a review of orders of the Commission. Petitioner agrees that, unless the letter of June 6, 1936, is an order of the Commission, the court is without jurisdiction.
On May 26, 1936, the petitioner filed a petition with the Commission asking it to amend its requirements, contained in form 10-K, so as to provide that, where registrants are common carriers by rail or omnibus and, as such, required by the laws of the state of New York to make annual reports to either division of the Department of public Seryice Commission of the state 0f New York, they may file annual financial statements not certified by independent Public accountants. In a letter of June 6, 1936, addressed to the general counsel of the petitioner, the request was acknowledge<^ an<^ tbe director of the Commission wrote: “The Commission has _ given due consideration to your application, and 1 have been directed to advise you that your Petltlon t0‘amend Item 8 of iorm 10-K and the instructions relating thereto was demed by the Commission on June 4.
No formal order was entered,
Section 25 (a) of the act (15 U.S.C.A. § 78y (a) reads': “Any person aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission m a proceeding under this title [chapter] to which such person is a party may obtain a review of such order.”
This presupposes a proceeding inter partes, between the Commission and the registrant. The letter of petitioner was merely a request to amend a rule of the Commission. It was not a proceeding within the meaning of section 25 (a). If there were disobedience in filing reports as required under form 10-K and a proceeding instituted against the petitioner and an order entered against it, petitioner might then have a right to file a petition to review in this court. But such is not this instance.
We are without jurisdiction to pass on the question presented, and the petition is dismissed.

Question: Did the court refuse to rule on the merits of the appeal because of some threshhold issue other than timeliness or frivolousness that was relevant on appeal but not at the original trial?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: B