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 court conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion. 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:
BURROUGHS v. UNITED STATES.
No. 11359.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 30, 1945.
Laconia C. Burroughs, in pro. per., of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
Jim C. Smith, U. S. Atty., of Birmingham, Ala., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY and McCORD, Circuit Judges, and KENNAMER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was convicted in 1941 on three counts for violation of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 397 et seq., and sentenced on each count. In 1941 the district judge set aside the imprisonment sentence on the third count, on the ground that it involved really the same transaction as the second count. On May 15, 1944, the case of Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369, 64 S.Ct. 1037, 88 L.Ed. 1331, was decided. Appellant, being in the penitentiary, moved in March, 1945, in the court of his conviction to set aside his conviction on the ground that the evidence on his trial, in the light of the Mortensen case, and others, did not warrant conviction. The evidence as he recited it in his motion tended to support his contention. But the trial judge in his order denying the motion stated that the evidence on the trial was quite otherwise, and the jury well warranted in their verdict of guilty. We have no other information as to what in truth the testimony was. We are bound to.accept the statement of the judge. Assuming, but not deciding, that he had jurisdiction at this late date thus to enquire into the correctness of the verdict, no error is shown in his denial of the motion.
Judgment affirmed.

Question: Did the court conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion.

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3