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 any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the court's ruling on attorneys' fees favor the appellant?" 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:
Roger HARRIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 17153.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Nov. 2, 1962.
Decided Feb. 28, 1963.
Mr. William B. Bryant, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Max Frescoln, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Mr. Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appel-lee. Mr. Tim Murphy, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, Pretty-man, Senior Circuit Judge, and Wilbur K. Miller, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of bribery. It appears that two police officers called at appellant’s apartment on a routine investigation of suspected illegal activity, i. e., gambling. Prior to their second call they advised their commanding of-fieer that they suspected, due to some conversation had with appellant upon the first call, that appellant might attempt a bribery. They left with the commanding officer all the money they had in their pockets. When they reached appellant’s apartment they were admitted and, having entered, walked around and looked over the room. Appellant testified that one of the officers picked up a cigar and' said: “Well, I can’t afford to smoke-these. I can’t afford two for a quarter.” Appellant then gave the officers six dollars apiece. He testified: “I said, ‘You-all get you some cigars.’ ” The officers placed him under arrest, returned to headquarters, and gave their commanding officer the twelve dollars.
Upon the trial appellant defended upon the ground of entrapment and requested an instruction on that theory. The trial judge was of opinion that the-evidence was not sufficient to raise an issue as to entrapment, and declined to-give the instruction. We agree with the trial court.
Affirmed.

Question: Did the court's ruling on attorneys' fees favor the appellant?

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3