Task: songer_subevid

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 civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court's interpretation of the substantial evidence rule support the government? For example, "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" or "more than a mere scintilla". This issue is present only when the court indicates that it is using this doctrine, rather than when the court is merely discussing the evidence to determine whether the evidence supports the position of the appellant or respondent." 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".

BONE, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, while confined in a federal penitentiary at Lewisberg, Pennsylvania, killed another inmate. When brought to trial he was represented by appointed counsel, pleaded guilty to the crime of second-degree murder and was thereupon sentenced to a term of twenty years imprisonment. See United States v. Lynch, 3 Cir., 132 F.2d Ill, certified denied, 318 U.S. 777, 63 S.Ct. 831, 87 L.Ed. 1146. Being presently confined under that sentence in the penitentiary at Alcatraz Island, he petitioned the court below for a writ of habeas corpus. That court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause, and appellant appealed.
Where, as here, no order to show cause is issued and no return is made or hearing had, the law requires that all of the allegations of fact contained in the petition be treated as true. Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471, 473, 65 S.Ct. 363, 89 L.Ed. 398, House v. Mayo, 324 U.S. 42, 45, 65 S.Ct. 517, 89 L.Ed. 739; White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760, 763, 65 S.Ct. 978, 89 L.Ed. 1348. If a petition is clearly insufficient upon its face, it is proper to dismiss it. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455; Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 284, 61 S.Ct. 574, 85 L.Ed. 830; Dorsey v. Gill, App.D.C., 148 F.2d 857, 870.
The petition in this case is not drawn with desirable precision and clarity. However, “technical nicety” is not required in setting forth the allegations on which a petitioner relies to impeach the validity of his conviction. His petition plainly indicates that he desires to reveal facts which he was coerced from revealing which he claims would have been good defense to the charges of which he was convicted. We are of the view that enough is charged or implied therein to require a hearing on the petition.
The case is remanded with directions to grant petitioner a hearing on his petition.
We have the advantage of the court below in that we have before us appellant’s brief in which he presents what is in effect an “interpretation” of some of the allegations of his petition,

Question: Did the court's interpretation of the substantial evidence rule support the government? For example, "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" or "more than a mere scintilla". This issue is present only when the court indicates that it is using this doctrine, rather than when the court is merely discussing the evidence to determine whether the evidence supports the position of the appellant or respondent.
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D