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. Lowell T. WEAVER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 71-2042.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
May 3, 1972.
C. Michael Kimber (Court Appointed), Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
William C. Ibershof, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit Mich., Ralph B. Guy, Jr., U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., on brief, for appel-lee.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals from a jury verdict of guilty and judgments of sentence entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, on two counts of Dyer Act violations, 18 U.S.C. § 2312 and § 2(b) (1970).
The principal appellate issue pertains to appellant’s claim that admission of evidence pertaining to not only the two cars mentioned in the two counts of the indictment, but also a third stolen car, represented reversible error.
In the context of a very similar set of facts, where the identical issue was raised and argued with vigor, this court has recently affirmed the admissibility of such evidence when it tended to show a pattern of conduct. United States v. Clark, 437 F.2d 942 (6th Cir. 1971).
Finding no reversible error the judgment of the District Court is 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