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 courts's use or interpretation of the arbitrary and capricious standard support the government? Note that APA allows courts to overturn agency actions deemed to be arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Overton Park emphasized this is a narrow standard, and one must prove that agency's action is without a rational basis. This also includes the "substantial justification" doctrine. 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:
Earl Kill SMITH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 7464.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Nov. 7,1957.
Decided Nov. 13, 1957.
Writ of Certiorari Denied March 3, 1958. See 78 S.Ct. 555.
Mathias J. DeVito, Baltimore, Md., for appellant.
Earl Kill Smith, pro se, on brief, and John R. Hargrove, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md. (Leon H. A. Pierson, U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for ap-pellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from denial of a motion, made under Rule 35 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., to- correct the sentence in a criminal case. Appellant pleaded guilty to, an indictment charging bank robbery and that in perpetrating the robbery he put in. jeopardy the lives of named persons “by the use of a dangerous weapon”. He was-sentenced to a term of twenty-five years, imprisonment and to pay a fine of $10,-000. He complains of this sentence on the ground that the “dangerous” weapon was not more specifically described in the indictment. The point is without merit for reasons adequately stated in the opinion of the District Judge. United States v. McGann, 150 F.Supp. 463. The crime was charged in the language of the statute (18 U.S.C. § 2113(d)); and it is well settled that this is sufficient.
Affirmed.

Question: Did the courts's use or interpretation of the arbitrary and capricious standard support the government? Note that APA allows courts to overturn agency actions deemed to be arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Overton Park emphasized this is a narrow standard, and one must prove that agency's action is without a rational basis. This also includes the "substantial justification" doctrine.

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3