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 any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the court's ruling on an issue arising out of an alternative dispute resolution process (ADR, settlement conference, role of mediator or arbitrator, etc.) favor the appellant?" 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:
ATLAS BROADCASTING COMPANY, Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee.
No. 16252.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit-
Argued Sept. 25, 1961.
Decided Oct. 6, 1961.
Mr. Mark E. Fields, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Samuel Miller, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mrs. Ruth Y. Reel, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Max D. Paglin, Gen. Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, and Daniel R. Ohlbaum, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Fahy, Bastían and Burger, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is from a decision and order of the Federal Communications Commission denying the application of standard broadcast station WMAX, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for authority to increase its operating power from 1 kilowatt to 5 kilowatts. The order denying rehearing is also included in the appeal.
There is no contention the issues designated for hearing on the application were not adequate, or that the hearing and resulting findings of the Hearing Examiner, adopted by the Commission in its decision and order, were not factually supported by the evidence, or that any procedural defects afflict the hearing or other proceedings leading to the decision and order. The complaint is that the conclusion of the Commission, like that of the Examiner, was so unreasonable that we should set it aside. The Commission found that the appellant had failed to demonstrate a need for its proposed new service which would outweigh the loss of service caused to station WIOS by the resulting interference. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the proposed application for service was not in the public interest and therefore should be denied. We think the Commission’s conclusion was within the discretion available to it under the standards applicable to judicial views.
As to the refusal of the Commission to defer action on appellant’s petition for rehearing pending disposition of the WIOS application for a change of frequency, this also was within the permissible range of the Commission’s discretion. See Greenwich Broadcasting Corp. v. Federal Communications Comm., 111 U.S. App.D.C. -, 294 F.2d 913.
Affirmed.
. Appellant, Atlas Broadcasting Company, became the licensee of station WMAX on October 24, 1960, pursuant to Commission approval of tbe assignment of the license from WMAX, Inc.
. 47 C.F.R. § 3.24(b) (Supp.1961).

Question: Did the court's ruling on an issue arising out of an alternative dispute resolution process (ADR, settlement conference, role of mediator or arbitrator, etc.) favor the appellant?

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3