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:
John A. CURTIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Raymond J. BUCHKOE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15662.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Aug. 27, 1964.
Jacob K. Stein (court appointed), Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
John A. Curtis, on brief, Marquette, Mich., in pro. per.
James R. Ramsey, Lansing, Mich., Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Donald T. Kane, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., on brief, for appellee.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AFFIRMING JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT.
Appellant was convicted by a jury on J une 15, 1949, in the Recorder’s Court for the City of Detroit, of the offense of armed robbery, and is presently serving his sentence in a Michigan State Prison.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed by the District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Northern Division, on the ground that appellant has not exhausted his remedies in the state courts of Michigan.
At the time of his conviction, appellant had a right under Michigan law to file a delayed application to appeal to the Supreme Court of Michigan without limitation of time. This right of delayed appeal to the Supreme Court of Michigan remains available to appellant at the present time under the new General Court Rule 806.4(2) of that Court. Hampton v. Buchkoe, 334 F.2d 6 (C.A. 6). Appellant therefore has available to him a remedy in the state courts, which he has not exhausted. 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
It is ordered that the decision of the District Court be and hereby is affirmed.
The Court expresses appreciation to Mr. Jacob K. Stein of the Cincinnati Bar who represented appellant ably as court-appointed counsel on the appeal in this case.

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: 4