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:
STATE OF TEXAS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents.
No. 83-4542.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 23, 1984.
Walter Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for petitioner.
H. Glenn Scammel, John J. Powers, III, John P. Fonte, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
Hugh L. McCulley, Houston, Tex., for intervenor Southern Pacific Trans. Co.
Before RUBIN, JOHNSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:
Southern Pacific Transportation Company filed an - amendment to a contract for transporting limestone within the State of Texas with the Texas Railroad Commission. It also filed a contract summary containing the information required by the ICC rules. The contract summary, which is available to the public, did not disclose the exact rates charged by Southern Pacific or the origin and destination of all movements. The contract contained the full terms of Southern Pacific’s agreement with the limestone shippers, but this document was confidential. The Railroad Commission rejected the contract summary because it did not include all “essential terms of the contract,” basing its action on the same interpretation of the Act adopted by the state’s Rail Rate Board in a case involving a contract filed by Burlington Northern Railroad Company, decided by us today. State of Texas v. United States, 730 F.2d 409 (5th Cir.1984) (Burlington Northern).
Southern Pacific filed a petition with the ICC seeking reversal of the Railroad Commission decision, in accordance with the statutory procedure. The ICC granted Southern Pacific’s petition, finding that the Railroad Commission’s rejection violated federal standards and procedures. Texas then sought judicial review.
Texas challenges the ICC action on essentially the same grounds considered by us in Parts V and VI of our opinion in Burlington Northern. It also challenges the ICC’s exclusion of origins and destinations from the “essential terms” required to be included in the contract summary.
The ICC asserts that we lack jurisdiction over this petition insofar as it challenges the substantive validity of the ICC’s contract rate rules. We rejected this contention in Part IV of Burlington Northern.
While, therefore, we take jurisdiction of this petition, for the reasons stated in Burlington Northern, we DENY it.
. 49 U.S.C. § 10713(b) (Supp. V 1981).
. 49 U.S.C. § 11501(c) (Supp. V 1981).

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