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. Aundra O. MAGEE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 78-5089.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 1978.
Decided Nov. 2, 1978.
John D. O’Connell, Detroit, Mich. (Court-appointed-CJA), for defendant-appellant.
James K. Robinson, U. S. Atty., Ellen Ritteman, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WEICK and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges, and LAWRENCE, District Judge.
Honorable Alexander A. Lawrence, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Magee seeks reversal after a conviction by a jury on one count of smuggling goods into the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545 (1976), and an additional count of conspiracy to do so under 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1976).
The evidence at trial showed that Magee, traveling in a car driven by one Jenkins, sought to enter the United States from Canada after Jenkins had told the customs inspector that they had nothing to declare. On inspection, $1,400 worth of clothes, which Magee admitted he had purchased in Canada, were discovered.
Appellant’s principal argument on appeal is that the regulation of the Customs Service was so overbroad and vague as to deny him due process. Our review of the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 545 and two regulations, 19 C.F.R. § 148.11 and 19 C.F.R. § 123.3, indicates no such lack of specificity or overbreadth.
Further, the District Judge did not err in admitting statements of Magee’s co-conspirator, Jenkins, and there was ample evidence to corroborate defendant’s own admissions.
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

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