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:
UNITED STATES of America ex rel., George CLAYBORN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank J. PATE, Warden, Illinois State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14204.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
Jan. 8, 1964.
Ronald M. Glink, Chicago, Ill., George Olayborn, pro. per., for appellant.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Edward Berman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., William C. Wines, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel, for appellee.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and KILEY and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner’s appeal from an adverse ruling in a habeas corpus proceeding raises the question: whether the district court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the allegation that his constitutional rights were violated in that a coerced confession was used in his conviction; his “illiterate” and unsound mind resulted in inability to understand the nature of the charge against him; and he was represented by incompetent counsel. We think the answer is no.
Petitioner pled guilty to murder in October, 1948, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In a post-conviction proceeding before the sentencing judge in 1955, issues of fact upon the same questions now raised were decided adversely to petitioner. Writ of error was denied him by the Illinois Supreme Court. Certiorari was denied him by the1 United States Supreme Court.
We have read the entire record which includes the Illinois Supreme Court opinion, and the transcript of proceedings at the post-conviction hearing which includes the judgment of conviction and excerpts from testimony. Ten witnesses, including the attorneys at the original trial, testified at the post-conviction hearing. Petitioner was represented by counsel. The court was careful to direct counsel to examine petitioner with respect to his various claims. It heard a play-back of the record of petitioner’s confession on a “Sound scriber.” The record of petitioner’s arraignment was introduced showing that he was advised of the consequences of his plea and the trial court’s finding that he “understands and comprehends” the nature of the charge against him; and there was introduced the transcript of his testimony subsequently in a separate mitigation hearing.
We see no merit in the contention that petitioner did not receive a “full and fair” hearing upon the points made in this petition for habeas corpus, or that these issues were not “actually reached and decided,” as required by Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 313-314, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963).
We find no basis for petitioner’s claim that the record shows that he received inadequate representation at his trial, thus requiring the district court’s hearing evidence .on the issue.
We appointed Attorney Ronald M. Glink, a member of the bar of Illinois, to represent petitioner. Mr. Glink’s service was in the highest tradition of the American bar. We commend him on his services.
Judgment is affirmed.
. Clayborn v. Illinois, 364 U.S. 874, 81 S.Ct. 118, 5 L.Ed.2d 96 (1960).

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: 0