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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James M. MAHONEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 74-1578.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 12, 1975.
Rehearing Denied April 25, 1975.
Ralph W. Rinehart, Tampa, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
John L. Briggs, U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Oscar Blasingame, Claude Ti-son, Jr., Terry Smiljanich, Asst. U. S. Attys., Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appel-lee.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and BELL and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from a conviction on charges involving marijuana importation offenses. Appellant was one of a group charged but was given a separate trial.
One principal assignment of error is that appellant was entrapped as a matter of law by the government’s use of a pilot-informer. The arrangements to import large quantities of marijuana were well underway by the time the pilot was employed. It happened that the pilot was a government informer and that the government allowed him to keep fees earned from his endeavors. The fee in this instance for flying from Tampa, Florida to Colombia, South America and return with 1,000 pounds of marijuana was $10,000 and 50 pounds of the marijuana. (The government stoutly denied "that the pilot was allowed to keep the marijuana.) ;
Appellant and Geder, one of his co-in-dictees, went to Colombia with the pilot to purchase the marijuana and to transport it to Tampa. All in the group of nine were apprehended upon the return of the pilot, appellant and Geders. The only additional fact favoring appellant was the claim that he and Geders were dissuaded by the pilot from dumping the marijuana from the plane while in flight and prior to reaching Tampa. The entrapment defense was submitted to the jury as an issue.
In our decision in United States v. Fink, supra, we rejected the contention of Geders that he was entrapped as a matter of law under these circumstances. Although the facts as to appellant differ to some extent, we reach the same conclusion here.
We have considered and likewise find without merit the following additional assignments of error: (1) that the government was permitted to introduce hearsay testimony from a police officer as to appellant’s predisposition to commit the crimes with which he was charged; (2) that the district court refused to compel the police officer to reveal the name of his confidential informant; (3) that the police officer’s name had not been included on the government’s pretrial list of witnesses against appellant; (4) that the district court admitted hearsay testimony of a coconspirator; (5) that the district court refused to ask prospective jurors questions submitted by appellant; (6) that the district court prematurely instructed the jury during the testimony of a coconspirator; and (7) that judgment of acquittal was not granted.
Affirmed.
. See United States v. Fink, 5 Cir., 1974, 502 F.2d 1. The eight persons indicted with appellant included Rufus R. Surles, Jr., Tom Waddington, Michael and Fred Fink, Randy Kilgore, Stephen Patrick, David Butler, and John Geders. Michael Fink and Geders were convicted and their convictions were affirmed in the above styled case. Waddington is deceased. Kilgore and Fred Fink pleaded guilty to charges against them prior to trial. Charges against Butler and Surles were dismissed on motion of the government.

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: 0