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:
Robert T. BRIM a/k/a Robert T. Mertz, Appellant, v. Herman SOLEM, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary and Mark V. Meierhenry, Attorney General, State of South Dakota, Appellees.
No. 82-1633.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 1982.
Decided Nov. 12, 1982.
Certiorari Denied April 4, 1983.
See 103 S.Ct. 1530.
Darla Pollman Rogers, Meyer Law Office, Onida, S.D., for appellant.
Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Douglas Kludt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, S.D., for appellee.
Before BRIGHT, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Robert Brim was convicted in 1958 in South Dakota state court of manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1979, he sought post-conviction relief in state court, alleging that neither his attorney nor the court advised him of his right to appeal. After an evidentiary hearing, the state court denied relief, finding that Brim had been advised of his right to appeal. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. Brim then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court denied the petition on two grounds. First, the court found the petition barred under the doctrine of laches as embodied in Rule 9(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Under this Rule, the state must show prejudice resulting from unreasonable delay. Cotton v. Mabry, 674 F.2d 701, 704-05 (8th Cir.1982). South Dakota showed that the trial judge had died and that large portions of the trial transcript had been destroyed by water damage while in storage. Brim delayed 21 years in challenging his conviction, even though he had been in contact with several attorneys during the course of his incarceration. We agree with the district court that under these circumstances Rule 9(a) dismissal was proper.
As an alternate basis for its decision, the court, after conducting an independent review of the record, concluded that there was substantial evidence that Brim was advised of his right to appeal. Brim’s trial attorney stated by affidavit that while he did not remember specifically advising Brim of his appeal right, he always advised his clients of that right and that the trial judge at Brim’s trial also was in the habit of advising defendants of the right to appeal. We agree with the district court that this was sufficient to prove that Brim had been advised of his right to appeal. See Bouchillon v. Estelle, 628 F.2d 926, 929 (5th Cir.1980).
Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s opinion. 8th Cir.R. 12(a).
. The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
. Rule 9(a) provides:
A petition may be dismissed if it appears that the state of which the respondent is an officer has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to the petition by delay in its filing unless the petitioner shows that it is based on grounds of which he could not have had knowledge by the exercise of due diligence before the circumstances prejudicial to the state occurred.
Rules following 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

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