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, Appellee, v. Buford Wilson WORLEY, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. A. C. BENNETT, Appellant.
Nos. 10622, 10624.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Oct. 31, 1966.
Decided Nov. 3, 1966.
N. Welch Morrisette, Jr., Columbia, S. C., for appellant in No. 10,622, and Charles B. Bowers, Columbia, S. C., for appellant in No. 10,624 (G. Raymond Mc-Elveen, and Lightsey & Bowers, Columbia, S. C., on joint brief), for appellants.
Charles S. Porter, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. (Terrell L. Glenn, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The only question presented by this appeal is whether on the facts of this case the District Court committed reversible error in permitting the United States to offer in evidence typed transcriptions of recorded telephone conversations.
A special agent of the Alcohol and Tobacco Unit of the Treasury Department testified that he identified Worley and Bennett as the persons talking, that he recorded the conversations, that he had the recordings, that transcriptions had been made of them, and that he had compared the transcriptions to the recordings and that they were the same. Upon this foundation the United States offered the transcripts into evidence.
Although the basis for appellants’ objections in the court below is not entirely clear in the record, we assume for purposes of this decision, as contended for by appellants, that the ground for the objection was that the tape recordings per se were the “best evidence”, and that the failure of the United States to offer the recordings left a fatal gap in establishing authenticity of the transcriptions.
We think appellants’ position is without merit because the record shows that before the transcriptions were received it was shown that the recordings were available and the District Judge indicated willingness to order them to be produced, in words as follows: “Well, he says he has the recording available here. Would you rather have the recording?”
Even after notice of appeal, counsel for the United States in open court offered to make the recordings available to counsel for appellants Bennett and Worley for the purpose of comparison with the transcripts introduced. It does not appear that the offer was ever accepted, and it is not asserted before us that the transcripts used varied from the tape recordings. Compare United States v. Hall, 342 F.2d 849 (4th Cir. 1965).
Affirmed.
. They were in the office of the United States Attorney and readily available.

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