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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Anthony RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 85-1768, 85-1771.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
May 19, 1989.
Opinion of the Court on Rehearing En Banc; Frank H. Seay — J.
Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, MCKAY, LOGAN, SEYMOUR, MOORE, ANDERSON, TACHA, BALDOCK, BRORBY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This case was originally decided by a panel of this court, United States v. Rivera, 837 F.2d 906 (10th Cir.1988). We subsequently granted rehearing en banc limited to the issue of:
whether the Sixth Amendment and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution require that an indictment charging a continuing criminal enterprise must allege all offenses to be used at trial, thus showing that facts concerning such offenses were presented to the grand jury, in order for evidence of such offenses to be admissible at trial.
United States v. Rivera, 847 F.2d 660 (10th Cir.1988).
After oral argument before the en banc court, on September 18, 1988, we ordered supplemental briefing which directed the parties, among other things, to address an additional question stated as follows:
3. Is it sufficient for an indictment that charges a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848 simply to allege in the language of the statute “a continuing series of violations,” or do the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution (including the right to indictment clause of the 5th Amendment) require the indictment to describe the essential facts constituting each violation relied upon tions? to establish the series of viola-
Following full consideration, the en banc court was evenly divided on the question as stated in paragraph 3 of the court’s September 18, 1988 Order Requesting Supplemental Briefing.
Thus, we next considered the narrower, original question of whether the trial court properly admitted into evidence uncharged offenses as substantive proof of the continuing series element of the continuing criminal enterprise charge. See 847 F.2d at 660. Again, after full consideration, the en bane court was evenly divided on the question of whether this indictment would support the introduction of evidence of uncharged offenses in order to prove the predicate offenses. Therefore, on this issue, the trial court is affirmed by an equally divided court. Accordingly, our judgment on this issue, found at 837 F.2d 914-921 (headnotes 6-20), is without precedent and is not binding on the trial court in this case. Eaton v. Price, 364 U.S. 263, 80 S.Ct. 1463, 4 L.Ed.2d 1708 (1960). The panel opinion otherwise remains undisturbed by the en banc court.

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: 0