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:
NEWCOMB et al. v. YORK ICE MACHINERY CORPORATION.
No. 6994.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 4, 1934.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1934.
Leonard Brown and M. A. Childers, both of San Antonio, Tex., for appellants.
Leo Brewer, of San Antonio, Tex., and R. Wayne Lawler, of Houston, Tex., for ap-pellee.
Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
WALKER, Circuit Judge.
When this case was here on a former appeal, this court held that the trial court had erred in striking appellants’ answer to' the bill, which put in issue allegations of the bill and set up matters of set-off and counterclaim, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Newcomb v. York Ice Machinery Corporation (C. C. A.) 56 F.(2d) 576. For a statement of the issues raised by the bill and the answer thereto reference is made to the opinion rendered when the case was here on the first appeal. Upon a consideration of the evidence adduced in the trial after the re-mandment of the cause the court found in favor of the appellee on the issues raised, and decreed accordingly. An examination of the evidence has led us to the conclusion that it duly supported the court’s findings of fact, and that none of those findings is properly subject to be set aside by this court. We think no useful purpose would be served by a recital or discussion of that evidence.
Error was assigned on the action of the court in holding that the burden was on the appellants, defendants below, to prove allegations of the answer to the bill by way of counterclaim as to the breach of the warranty, contained in the contract sued on for the sale by the appellee to the appellant Newcomb of an ice-making machine, of the ice-maldng capacity of that machine. The allegations referred to were of a matter of affirmative defense, the burden of proving which was on the appellants. Buckstaff v. Russell, 151 U. S. 626, 14 S. Ct. 448, 38 L. Ed. 292; O. C. Barber Mining & Fertilizing Co. v. Brown Hoisting Mach. Co. (C. C. A.) 258 F. 1; 24 R. C. L. 162.
The record shows no reversible error. The decree is
Affirmed.

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