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 rule for the government in an issue related to agency acquisition of information (e.g. physical inspections, searches, subpoenas, records, etc)? 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:
UNITED PRODUCING COMPANY, Inc., a corporation, Appellant, v. PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.
No. 4703.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Sept. 8, 1954.
William J. Holloway, Jr., and Y. P. Crowe, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Embry, Johnson, Crowe, Tolbert & B oxley, Oklahoma City, Okl., H. W. Stubbs, and Stubbs & Wesley, Ulysses, Kan., on the brief), for appellant.
Mark H. Adams, Wichita, Kan., and William I. Robinson, Tulsa, Okl. (Edward H. Lange, Kansas City, Mo., and Adams, Jones, Robinson & Manka, Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRATTON, MURRAH and PICKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The case of Columbian Fuel Corp. v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co., 176 Kan. 433, 271 P.2d 773, was decided after entry of the judgment herein. On the authority of that case, the judgment is vacated and the cause is remanded.

Question: Did the court rule for the government in an issue related to agency acquisition of information (e.g. physical inspections, searches, subpoenas, records, etc)?

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3