opinion: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clotilda Calderon ROJAS, Defendant-Appellant.
  No. 71-2250.
  United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
  May 1, 1972.
  Richard F. Ellers, Nevada City, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
  William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Chester L. Brown, Asst. U. S. Atty., Eric A. Nobles, Chief, Crim. Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
  Before KOELSCH, KILKENNY and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM:
  Appellant was tried and convicted in the district court, sitting without a jury, for misapplication of bank funds (18 U.S.C. § 656).
  Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient, in that it “did not exclude every hypothesis but guilt.” As this court held in Sablan v. Peo. of Guam, 434 F.2d 837, 839 (9th Cir. 1970), “[T]he proper test is not whether the evidence excludes every hypothesis except that of guilt, but rather, ‘whether the [trier of fact] could reasonably arrive at [its] conclusion’.” See United States v. Nelson, 419 F.2d 1237, 1243 (9th Cir. 1969). Although appellant’s testimony conflicted with that of prosecution witnesses, there was substantial evidence to support a finding of guilt. It was for the trial judge, as finder of fact, to assess the weight and credibility of the witnesses’ testimony. Rule 23, F.R.Crim.P.; Fernandez-Delgado v. United States, 368 F.2d 34 (9th Cir. 1966).
  Nor did the trial court err in admitting into evidence testimony concerning a damaging admission made by appellant. The admission was made to a bank official, not a law enforcement officer, and the trial court specifically found, after hearing the parties, that the statement was voluntary.
  Lastly, appellant argues that her admission was not corroborated. She is mistaken.
  The judgment is affirmed.
instruction: 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 conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion. 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".