Task: songer_suffic

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that there was insufficient evidence for conviction?" 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". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless". 

PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying appellant enlargement on bail. The appellant is presently serving a sentence in the Lewisburg Penitentiary following a conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The validity of that conviction and sentence is not challenged in this proceeding. However, while serving sentence on that conviction, he was indicted by the Federal Grand Jury for a separate and distinct offense. He then applied to the District Court for enlargement on bail in order that he might be “afforded the effective assistance of counsel” in preparation for the trial on this indictment. Of course, this appeal does not involve a claim that the appellant has been or will be denied the opportunity to confer with his attorney at any proper time.
The district court held that it was without jurisdiction to grant bail. We think it abundantly clear that this decision was correct in the circumstances of this case.
The order of the district court will be affirmed.

Question: Did the court rule that there was insufficient evidence for conviction?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes, but error was harmless
D. Mixed answer
E. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: E