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:
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc., Intervenor. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. HENRY I. SIEGEL CO., Inc., Respondent. HENRY I. SIEGEL CO., Inc., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Intervenor.
Nos. 21086, 21131, 21316.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued March 20, 1968.
Decided July 15, 1969.
Certiorari Denied Jan. 12, 1970.
See 90 S.Ct. 556.
Mr. Clifford D. Reznicek, New York City, of the bar of the Supreme Court of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Jacob Sheink-man, New York City, was on the brief, for petitioner in No. 21,086 and inter-venor in No. 21,316.
Mr. Elliott Moore, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, with whom Mr. Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Mr. Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Mr. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Assistant General Counsel, and Mr. Harold B. Zanoff, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, were on the brief, for respondent in Nos. 21,086 and 21,316 and petitioner in No. 21,131.
Mr. Osmond K. Fraenkel, New York City, for intervenor in No. 21,086, respondent in No. 21,131, and petitioner in No. 21,316.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and WRIGHT, MeGOWAN, TAMM, LEVENTHAL, ROBINSON, MacKIN-NON, and ROBB, Circuit Judges.
PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit Judge:
In this case the Labor Board set aside an election on account of unfair labor practices by an- employer and thereupon issued a bargaining order upon the evidence of authorization cards. Upon the authority of the opinion and decision of the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., et al., the decision and ruling of the Board are affirmed. It will present an appropriate order of enforcement.
. 395 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969).

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