What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile, (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?" 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".

Opinion:
Costas TSIMOUNIS, Appellant, v. J. W. HOLLAND, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
No. 11750.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Dec. 9, 1955.
Decided Jan. 6, 1956.
J. J. .Kilimnik, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Eugene J. Bradley, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, an alien seaman, filed a complaint in the district court seeking review of an order of the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, to deport him. A temporary restraining order was issued and the Government moved for summary judgment. The application for injunction and the Government’s motion were combined for hearing at which time appellant testified. Following that testimony his counsel advised the court he would "‘[r]est on the record as presented to the Immigration authorities plus what the plaintiff testified to today.” What actually took place was in effect a final hearing on the merits of appellant’s complaint. There is no contention that any other or further evidence should have been or could have been presented on behalf of the appellant.
It is urged for appellant that he was illegally arrested and subjected to illegal search and seizure, that the deportation proceeding should have been conducted by a hearing examiner under the' Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq. and that the deportation order was not based upon reasonable, substantial and probative evidence.
The deportation proceedings were properly heard before a Special Inquiry Officer. Section 242(b) Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b); 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(b); 8 .C.F.R. § 9.1(b). And see Marcello v. Bonds, 1955, 349 U.S. 302, 75 S.Ct. 757. The record is clear that, as found by the district court, there was no illegal arrest or illegal search and seizure. In the situation, under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357(a) (1, 2) the patrol inspectors were entitled to interrogate appellant and to arrest him in the reasonable belief he was in this country illegally. Appellant himself testified that the documents now asserted to have been illegally seized from him were given by him voluntarily to the inspectors. They consisted of appellant’s passport and a personal letter.
The proofs are conclusive that appellant is in this country without an unexpired immigration visa and had the intention of staying as long as he could. He is here illegally. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1181 (a).
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
. 1955, 132 F.Supp. 754.

Question: Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?

Choices:
No
Yes
Yes, but error was harmless
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 4