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 support the decision of an administrative law judge? 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:
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. WIDENER (three cases).
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
June 20, 1929.
Nos. 4001, 4002, 4003.
Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John Vaughan Groner and Bar-ham R. Gary, both of Washington, D. C. (C. M. Charest, General Counsel, and Shelby S. Faulkner, Sp. Atty. Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.
Ellis Ames Ballard, William R. Spofford, and Schoffleld Andrews, all of Philadelphia, Pa. (Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for appellees.
Before BUFFINGTON and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges, and THOMSON, District Judge.
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
These cases present the question whether the Board of Tax Appeals erred in holding, as it did, that the racing stables of these taxpayers were operated as a “business,” or a “transaction entered into for profit,” within the meaning of the Revenue Acts of 1918 and 1921 (40 Stat. 1057, 42 Stat. 227). The Board of Tax Appeals held they were, and allowed reductions for losses thereby sustained. Thereupon the Commissioner took this appeal. The facts are not in dispute, and the warrant for the conclusions drawn therefrom by the Board are so fully and satisfactorily set forth in the record as to make a restatement by this court unnecessary.
Finding no error, judgment of the Tax Board is affirmed.

Question: Did the court support the decision of an administrative law judge?

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3