opinion: Frank Roy SMITH, Appellant, v. Arthur FIHELLY and Henry Bagelmann, Appellees.
  No. 9584.
  United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
  Argued Nov. 10, 1964.
  Decided Nov. 19, 1964.
  G. Clinton Moore, Richmond, Va. (Franklin J. Carter and Wright & Moore, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant.
  Harry W. Goldberg, Washington, D. C. (Alfred Z. Bernstein, Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellees.
  Before BOREMAN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and WINTER, District Judge.
  PER CURIAM:
  A judgment rendered for appellees by the district judge, sitting without a jury in a diversity ease, arising out of a collision between two vehicles both traveling south on the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike, serves as a basis for this appeal. A vehicle operated by appellee Fihelly at approximately 55 miles per hour in the extreme right hand lane of the three lane south bound portion of the Turnpike collided with a vehicle operated by appellant in a lane or between lanes to the left and front of Fihelly’s vehicle when appellant’s car veered to the right as Fihelly’s vehicle was about to overtake it.
  On conflicting evidence, the district judge found appellant negligent and appellant’s negligence a proximate cause of the accident. The district judge did not make a definite ruling upon the question of Fihelly’s negligence raised by appellant’s defense of contributory negligence because that question involved a construction of state law on which the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia had not spoken; but, again on conflicting evidence, the district judge found that the asserted negligence on the part of Fihelly was not an efficiently contributing cause of the accident.
  We have examined the evidence relevant to the issue of whether any negligence on the part of Fihelly caused or contributed to the happening of the accident and we cannot say that the finding of the district judge was clearly erroneous, Rule 52, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Johnson, Administratrix v. United States, 336 F.2d 801 (4 Cir. 1964); United States v. Still, 120 F.2d 876 (4 Cir. 1941), cert. den., 314 U.S. 671, 62 S.Ct. 135, 86 L.Ed. 537 (1941). Therefore, the judgment of the lower court 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 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".