Task: songer_genstand

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 agency articulate the appropriate general standard?" This question includes whether the agency interpreted the statute "correctly". The courts often refer here to the rational basis test, plain meaning, reasonable construction of the statute, congressional intent, etc. This issue also includes question of which law applies or whether amended law vs law before amendment applies. 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".

KNOCH, Circuit Judge.
This appeal was submitted on the record and the briefs of the parties without oral argument.
Petitioner, who was held in the Jail of the County of Cook, State of Illinois, sought a declaratory judgment in the United States District Court declaring the Interstate Parole Reciprocal Agreement Act, Illinois Rev.Stat.1965, ch. 38, sec. 123-5, to be unconstitutional, so that he might avoid the effect of a parole violation warrant lodged against him at the Cook County Jail by the State of Indiana, when his sentence in the Cook County Jail expires.
The United States District Court dismissed appellant’s petition for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
The constitutionality of the Interstate Parole Reciprocal Agreement Act has been carefully considered by this Court and was sustained in United States ex rel. Simmons on Behalf of Gray v. Loh-man, 7 Cir., 1955, 228 F.2d 824, 826. Our views of this subject are unchanged.
The decision of the District Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.

Question: Did the agency articulate the appropriate general standard? This question includes whether the agency interpreted the statute "correctly". The courts often refer here to the rational basis test, plain meaning, reasonable construction of the statute, congressional intent, etc. This issue also includes question of which law applies or whether amended law vs law before amendment applies.
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D