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:
FEAR RANCHES, INC., Appellant, v. H. C. BERRY, d/b/a Berry Ranch Co., et al., Appellees.
No. 73-1297.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Sept. 25, 1974.
Milton A. Oman, Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellant.
Frank H. Allen, Jr., Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, Albuquerque, N. M., for appellees, H. C. Berry, d/b/a Berry Ranch Co., and Berry Land and Cattle Co., Inc.
Charles C. Spann, Grantham, Spann & Sanchez, Albuquerque, N. M., and Kreh-biel & Alsup,- Clayton, N. M., for appel-lee, Kelly Perschbacker.
Before JONES, SETH and DOYLE, Circuit Judges.
Of the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.
SETH, Circuit Judge.
An opinion on the first appeal of this case was filed as Fear Ranches, Inc. v. H. C. Berry, et al., 10 Cir., 470 F.2d 905. On the first appeal, all issues were disposed of except as to a point concerning the custom and usage prevailing in New Mexico. On this point the trial judge received evidence but made no finding. The case was remanded for additional findings. These have now been made and the case is before us as No. 73-1297.
The trial court on remand, in Supplemental Findings of Fact, found that:
“There is a usage of trade in the cattle industry in New Mexico that a knowledgeable buyer, relying entirely on his own judgment, in buying cattle from a knowledgeable seller, who makes no representations as to the condition of the cattle, takes the animals as he selects them and there are no implied warranties of the fitness of the cattle.”
This Finding No. 7 excludes any implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The finding of the buyer’s reliance on his own judgment is supported by the record. This self-reliance included the matter of whether or not the cattle were free from disease. This was the only issue remaining after the original opinion.
The judgment is affirmed.

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