What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the treatment the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed, that is, whether the court below the Supreme Court (typically a federal court of appeals or a state supreme court) affirmed, reversed, remanded, denied or dismissed the decision of the court it reviewed (typically a trial court). Adhere to the language used in the "holding" in the summary of the case on the title page or prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. Exceptions to the literal language are the following: where the Court overrules the lower court, treat this a petition or motion granted; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing refuses to enforce or enjoins the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as reversed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing enforces the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as affirmed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing sets aside the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as vacated; if the decision is set aside and remanded, treat it as vacated and remanded.

Opinion:
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. v. WILLIAMS et al.
No. 05-465.
Argued April 26, 2006
Decided June 5, 2006
Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Richard D. Bernstein, Juan P. Morillo, and Steven T Cottreau.
Howard W. Foster argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were John E. Floyd, Joshua F Thorpe, Ronan P. Doherty, Bobby Lee Cook, and Matthew Thames.
Malcolm L. Stewart argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Fisher, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and Sangita K. Rao
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. by Beth S. Brinkmann, Seth M. Galanter, Alison Tucher, Robin S. Conrad, and Amar D. Sarwal; and for the National Association of Manufacturers et al. by Michael J. Mueller, Jan S. Amundson, and Quentin Riegel.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Immigration Political Action Committee et al. by Barnaby W. Zall; and for the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys by Kevin R Roddy and G. Robert Blakey.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari limited to Question 1 presented by the petition, granted at 546 U. S. 1075 (2005), is dismissed as improvidently granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., ante, p. 451.
It is so ordered.

Question: What treatment did the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed?

Choices:
stay, petition, or motion granted
affirmed
reversed
reversed and remanded
vacated and remanded
affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part
affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded
vacated
petition denied or appeal dismissed
modify
remand
unusual disposition

Answer: 1