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:
Maurice DEANS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 18417.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
July 6, 1964.
Rehearing Denied en Banc Dec. 18, 1964.
Mr. Robert E. May, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Gene P. Bond, Washington, D. C. (both appointed by this court), was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Martin R. Hoffman, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and William H. Collins, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Mr. Robert Perry, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before Edgerton, Senior Circuit Judge, and Washington and Burger, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel.
Although the delay between the time of some of the offenses and the time of the arrest was substantial, the testimony of the defendant-appellant demonstrated his ability to recall the details of the transactions, and thus tended to negate prejudice from the delay; and moreover, the sentences imposed were concurrent, see Hirabayshi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943); and the court concludes that no error occurred affecting substantial rights, it is
Ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the District Court on appeal in this cause is hereby affirmed.
ORDER
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Fahy, Washington, Danaher, Bastían, Burger, Wright and McGowan, Circuit Judges, in Chambers.
PER CURIAM.
On consideration of appellant’s petition for rehearing en bane, it is
Ordered by the Court en bane that appellant’s petition is denied.
BAZELON, Chief Judge, would grant appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc. See his dissenting statement in Hardy and Ferguson v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. -, 343 F.2d 233.
WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, prior to his retirement on October 15, 1964, voted to deny appellant’s petition.
FAHY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, would grant appellant’s petition.

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

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3