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 rule for the government in an issue related to agency acquisition of information (e.g. physical inspections, searches, subpoenas, records, etc)? 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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Larry Wayne WALKER, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 7481.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
April 29, 1970.
Norman C. Ross, Boston, Mass., by appointment of the Court, for appellant.
Stanislaw R. J. Suchecki, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Herbert F. Travers, Jr., U. S. Atty., was on brief, for the United States, appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, COFFIN, Circuit Judge, and FORD, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment must be affirmed on the opinion below 304 F.Supp. 970. In United States v. Powers, 1 Cir., 1969, 413 F.2d 834, we upheld the reasonableness of regulation 32 C.F.R. 1625.2, which provides that a claim for conscientious objector status must be made before the registrant receives his induction notice, unless his entitlement to that status did not mature until after-wards. See also, United States v. Gearey, 2 Cir., 1966, 368 F.2d 144. We cannot in this respect consider it unreasonable to require a registrant to exercise at least a minimum amount of diligence in his own interest. We held, for reasons there set out, that the registrant had a duty of inquiry as to the nature of that status, and that it would constitute an undue and unworkable burden upon the operation of the Service if he could do nothing, and then awaken to his rights, or alleged rights, at the final moment. In the case at bar we do not consider that defendant’s asking two friends, who were as uninformed as himself, satisfied that burden.
The reason for this regulation requires it to be applied in an individual case, at least in the discretion of the Board, without holding a hearing and taking testimony. For us to decide otherwise would effectively destroy the rule and the purpose behind it.

Question: Did the court rule for the government in an issue related to agency acquisition of information (e.g. physical inspections, searches, subpoenas, records, etc)?

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3