Task: songer_weightev

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 factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?" This includes discussions of whether the litigant met the burden of proof. 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.
Petitioner, Mickey D. Staggs, appeals pro se from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
On June 17, 1963, the petitioner was sentenced under the provisions of the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S. C. § 5017(c), in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Section 5017 (c) provides that:
“A youth offender committed under 5010(b) of this chapter shall be released conditionally under supervision on or before the expiration of four years from the date of his conviction and shall be discharged unconditionally on or before six years from the date of his conviction.”
Subsequently, the petitioner’s conviction was vacated, and on February 2, 1965, he was again convicted and resentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 5017(c). He was given no credit for time served under the initial sentence. On June 1, 1966, the petitioner was conditionally released with supervision to continue to February 1, 1971. He was subsequently arrested and convicted on two separate charges in the state courts of Tennessee. On the basis of these convictions, a Parole Violator Warrant issued on January 11, 1968, and was executed on June 5, 1969, at the Tennessee State Penitentiary. The petitioner was committed to the Federal Correctional Institution, Texarkana, Texas; he was given a parole revocation hearing in Texarkana; and his parole was revoked. The petitioner subsequently was transferred to the Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri.
On appeal, the petitioner raises six issues previously raised in the District Court. His primary contention is that he should have been given credit at the time he was resentenced on February 2, 1965, for time served under his June 17, 1963, sentence for the same offense. This contention has been mooted by the petitioner’s release from the Medical Center on July 3, 1970, in accordance with current policy giving credit for time served on vacated sentences. See, North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); Beufve v. United States, 374 F.2d 123 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 881, 88 S.Ct. 122, 19 L.Ed.2d 175 (1967).
The petitioner’s remaining five contentions concern the validity of his sentence and the validity of his parole revocation. We do not decide these questions here as they either have been mooted by the petitioner’s release or properly should have been brought before the sentencing court on a § 2255 motion.
Judgment accordingly.

Question: Did the factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D