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:
SUN OIL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent.
No. 15271.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Oct. 22, 1965.
Decided Nov. 8, 1965.
Phillip D. Endom, John A. Ward, III, Philadelphia, Pa., Charles F. Heidrick, J. Colbert Peurifoy, Dallas, Tex., Robert E. May, Louis Flax, May, Shannon & Morley, Washington, D. C., for Sun Oil Co., Martin A. Row, Dallas, Tex., of counsel,
Peter H. Schiff, Richard A. Solomon, Gen. Counsel, Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Sol., Robert L. Russell, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Herzel H. E. Plaine, Atty., F. P. C., Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before McLAUGHLIN, FORMAN and GANEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act, Section 154.91 et seq. relating to producers rates provide that independent producers subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction file their contracts as rate schedules. Section 154.93 defines pricing provisions that are permissible, prohibits all other types of price changing clauses and specifies that contracts which are executed after April 2,1962, and which contain impermissible price changing clauses shall be rejected. We are completely satisfied that those said Regulations are reasonable and apply directly to the issue before us. We affirmatively find that petitioner’s present application for a certificate of convenience and necessity depends upon a contract containing impermissible price changing provisions. The record in this matter affords convincing basis to support the decision of the Commission in rejecting the application. Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. Federal Power Commission, 352 F.2d 241 (10 Cir. op. filed October 18, 1965); Superior Oil Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 322 F.2d 601 (9 Cir. 1963), cert. den. 377 U.S. 922, 84 S.Ct. 1219, 12 L.Ed.2d 215 (1964), rehearing den. 377 U.S. 960, 84 S.Ct. 1625, 12 L.Ed. 2d 504 (1964); Federal Power Commission v. Texaco, Inc., 377 U.S. 33, 84 S. Ct. 1105, 12 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964).
There is obviously no authentic Constitutional question presented by this litigation.
The order of the Federal Power Commission will be affirmed.

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

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3