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:
James H. WHITE, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 20542.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued April 3, 1967.
Decided April 14, 1967.
Mr. Noel H. Thompson, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellant.
Mr. Arthur L. Burnett, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Donald S. Smith, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Fahy, McGowan and Tamm, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
An indictment of appellant for unauthorized use of a vehicle, in violation of D.C.Code § 22-2204, was dismissed by the District Court December 9, 1965. Upon consideration of the record relating to the dismissal we conclude that it was with prejudice. Nevertheless, a few days thereafter, December 15, 1965, appellant was again indicted for the same offense. His motion to dismiss the second indictment due to the bar created by the earlier dismissal with prejudice was denied. We think it should have been granted. The dismissal with prejudice constituted an adjudication which barred another prosecution for the same offense. United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85, 37 S. Ct. 68, 61 L.Ed. 161; District of Columbia v. Weams, 208 A.2d 617, 619 (D.C. Mun.App.). Appellant’s conviction under the second indictment, now before us on this appeal, accordingly must be set aside and the case remanded for dismissal of that indictment.
It is so ordered.
. See Mann v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 27, 304 F.2d 394, where dismissal of the indictment was granted explicitly without prejudice and reindictment was held proper.

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