Task: songer_juryinst

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court conclude that the jury instructions were improper?" 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 case, arising out of a much litigated dispute between Plaintiffs and the SEC, represents an attempt to require the SEC to file, make public, and treat in a regular fashion a paper which purports to be a registration statement. In view of the fact that this paper clearly fails to meet the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 and the SEC’s rules and regulations, we agree fully with the District Court that it does not represent a bona fide attempt to qualify to sell securities to the investing public and hence is not a registration statement at all. Summary judgment for the Defendants was correct.
Affirmed.
. Holmes v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 353 F.2d 785 [Dec. 13, 1965] ; Holmes v. Eddy, 4 Cir., 1965, 341 F.2d 477; SEC v. Bond & Share Corp., W.D.Okl., 1963, 229 F.Supp. 88 (appeal pending to 10th Circuit).

Question: Did the court conclude that the jury instructions were improper?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes, but error was harmless
D. Mixed answer
E. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: E