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 conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion. 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".

Opinion:
LOWERY v. UNITED STATES.
No. 10211.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
April 27, 1943.
Albert D. Rosellini, of Seattle, Wash., for appellant.
J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., and G. D. Hile, Asst. U. S. Attorney, both of Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Before GARRECHT, HANEY, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of a violation of the Narcotic Drugs Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. His sole contention is that the evidence against him was obtained by an unlawful search and seizure in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.
Appellant was intercepted by the federal officers as he disembarked from a plane and was about to enter a bus; and a bag was taken from him containing a number of tins of opium. The officers had no search warrant. It is clear from the showing made on the motion to suppress that the officers were in possession of facts sufficient to lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that appellant was unlawfully in possession of narcotics. The judgment is accordingly affirmed on the authority of Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, 39 A.L.R. 790, and Husty v. United States, 282 U.S. 694, 51 S.Ct. 240, 75 L.Ed. 629, 74 A.L.R. 1407.

Question: Did the court conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion.

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3