Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): federal firearms disabilities which might be vindicated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1337, which establish original district court jurisdiction over cases involving federal questions and congressional commerce regulations, respectively. Rather, the statute states that a person “may make application to the Secretary” and “the Secretary may grant such relief.” 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). Second, the standard for granting relief is worded so broadly as to connote administrative agency decisionmaking. Section 925(c) states that relief may be granted if “the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the application will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary 97) (<HOLDING>); Burtch v. United States Dep’t of the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that congress clearly intended to suspend  925c relief by denial of funding for investigating and processing applications under the statute and denying writ of mandamus (B) holding that persons seeking restoration of federal firearms privileges need not exhaust administrative remedies to invoke the judicial review provision of section 925c (C) holding that section 925c authorizes judicial review of only the denial of an application for relief (D) holding that the standard of review is abuse of discretion and an appeal from denial of rule 60b relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review (E) holding that the only role for the judiciary is judicial review of a denial of relief under  925c
Output (English): holding that congress clearly intended to suspend  925c relief by denial of funding for investigating and processing applications under the statute and denying writ of mandamus