Task: Text Completion
Input (English): 151, 27 L.Ed. 887 (1883)). Whüe repeals by implication “are not favored,” Congress is not required to make an express statement in order to modify an existing statute via subsequent appropriations legislation. Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 189, 98 S.Ct. 2279, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted). A “positive repugnancy” between the existing statute and the appropriations statute is sufficient to indicate the earlier statute’s suspension or repeal. Id. at 190, 98 S.Ct. 2279 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550, 94 S.Ct. 2474, 41 L.Ed.2d 290 (1974) (repeal is implied when the earlier and later statutes are “irreconcilable”). Congress could not have stated more clearly that the ATF is prohib -16 (E.D.Va.1999) (<HOLDING>). Since the ATF owes the plaintiff no duty 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances (B) holding that section 925c authorizes judicial review of only the denial of an application for relief (C) holding that the only role for the judiciary is judicial review of a denial of relief under  925c (D) 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 (E) holding that a denial of due process warrants mandamus relief
Output (English): (D)