You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]



123 F.Supp.2d 1012 (2000)
Charles L. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.
No. 5:98CV73BrS.
United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Western Division.
September 20, 2000.
Charles Lee Crawford, Jr., Estill, SC, plaintiff pro se.
Dolan D. Self, Jr., J. Clifton Johnson, II, U.S. Attorney's Office, Jackson, MS, for Federal Bureau of Prisons, defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BRAMLETTE, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (docket entries 19-2 and 19-3). Having considered the motion, the Plaintiff's response, and the Defendants' rebuttal, the Court finds, for the reasons explained below, that the motion to dismiss should be granted and that this case should be dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered. Fed.R.Civ.P. 58.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, who was an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Yazoo City, Mississippi ("FCI-Yazoo City") at the time he filed this suit, initiated this action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2672 et seq., alleging that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. He has sued the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and Officer B.L. Owens. By previous order entered in this case, the United States of America was substituted for defendant Owens, and Owens was dismissed from the case.[1] In his complaint, he alleges that while he was temporarily housed at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners located at Springfield, Missouri, for repairs to his prosthetic limb, he was placed on Administrative Detention on December 18, 1996. On December 20, 1996, a property officer and Bureau of Prisons employee, Owens, inventoried Crawford's personal items, among which was a T.E.N.S. (Tenescular Electrical Nerve Stimulator) Unit and related *1013 equipment. Crawford alleges that Owens informed him that the Plaintiff could not retain the T.E.N.S. Unit and related equipment while in Administrative Segregation because it was contraband. According to his complaint and later filings, Crawford alleges that he completed the necessary paperwork and provided postage so that the T.E.N.S. Unit and related equipment could be mailed to his parents' home address.
On December 24, 1996, Plaintiff was released from Administrative Detention and received his property, except the T.E.N.S. Unit and related equipment. Crawford alleges that his parents have never received the equipment, and attempts to locate the equipment at Springfield were unsuccessful. Plaintiff was subsequently transported back to the federal detention facility at Ashland, Kentucky, where he filed an administrative claim for damage, injury or death on March 18, 1997. Document #6 as attached to Plaintiff's Complaint. He alleges that he exhausted his administrative remedies, then filed this suit.
Plaintiff now seeks actual damages in the amount of $1,819.88, the value he attaches to the T.E.N.S. Unit and related equipment based on its 1990 purchase price. He also seeks compensatory, exemplary, or punitive damages for his pain and suffering, and any special damages for costs incurred as a result of this action, including, but not limited to court costs, attorney fees and costs or equal compensation for his time, and any other types of damages unknown to him.
The United States answered, asserting, among other defenses, that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the case, that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, that the complaint should be dismissed because the Plaintiff requested damages and alleged acts injuries which he did not include in his administrative claim, and that the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for claims such as this. The United States subsequently filed this motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b) and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In the motion and supporting memorandum, the United States argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, that the Plaintiff's complaint presents no genuine issues of material fact, and that the United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. According to the government's memorandum, Crawford failed to pay the necessary mailing costs for his T.E.N.S. Unit and related equipment to be mailed to his parents. Therefore, according to procedure, his equipment was stored for one hundred twenty days, then destroyed on April 28, 1997. See Exhibit B to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
In his response to the motion, Crawford asserts that he gave sufficient postage to Owens at the time the equipment was confiscated, accordingly, there is no reason the equipment should not have been mailed to his parents. He argues that the equipment was not contraband because he had previously possessed it with the permission of and knowledge of prison officials. He further asserts that personnel at the medical center made no effort to locate the equipment, even though he made a request for assistance over one month prior to the time it was destroyed.

DISCUSSION
In its motion and supporting memorandum, the United States argues, inter alia, that because it has not waived sovereign immunity in situations where a cause of action involves detention of goods by a law enforcement officer, this case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c). The Court characterizes this argument as a facial attack on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Rodriguez v. Texas Comm'n on the Arts, 992 F.Supp. 876, 879 (N.D.Tex.1998). Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal *1014 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may raise the defense of "lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter" in a motion prior to filing an answer to the complaint. Such attack may also occur at any stage of the proceedings. Id. For the purposes of this motion, the allegations of the complaint are taken as true. Id. at 878. Although the Court is sympathetic to the Plaintiff's situation, this case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
As pointed out by the government's brief, in the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), the United States has consented to be sued for "injury or loss of property ... caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment." 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). This waiver of sovereign immunity "is jurisdictional in nature so that if the action is barred, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim." Johnson v. United States, 2000 WL 968795, *2 (D.Kan. June 27, 2000) (citing Bradley v. United States, 951 F.2d 268, 270 (10th Cir.1991)). The Court must strictly construe the waiver in order to prevent its expansion beyond Congress's intent. Id.
There are, however, exceptions to the waiver of sovereign immunity in the FTCA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a)-(n). One such exception is for
[a]ny claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax or customs duty, or the detention of any goods or merchandise by any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer.

28 U.S.C. § 2680(c) (emphasis added). The government asserts the exception for law enforcement employees should be applied to Bureau of Prisons employees. Therefore, the government asserts, because the Plaintiff's property was seized and detained by a correctional officer acting within the scope of his employment, the exception to liability applies to the Defendants. Employing this reasoning, the government argues that this claim is excluded under the FTCA, and, therefore, should be dismissed.
The Fifth Circuit has interpreted the phrase "other law enforcement officer" broadly to hold that " § 2680(c) exempts from the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity any claim based on the detention of goods by any federal law enforcement officers in the performance of their lawful duties." Halverson v. United States, 972 F.2d 654, 656 (5th Cir.1992). In Halverson, the Fifth Circuit found that Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") Border Patrol agents were law enforcement officers under § 2680(c). Id. (citing Schlaebitz v. United States, 924 F.2d 193, 194 (11th Cir.1991) (luggage confiscated by U.S. Marshal); Ysasi v. Rivkind, 856 F.2d 1520 (Fed.Cir.1988) (property confiscated by INS); Formula One Motors v. United States, 777 F.2d 822 (2nd Cir.1985) (merchandise destroyed by the Drug Enforcement Agency); United States v. 2,116 Boxes of Boned Beef, 726 F.2d 1481 (10th Cir.1984) (property seized by the Department of Agriculture)). Other federal courts have extended § 2680(c)'s exception to Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") employees for FTCA claims based on loss of detained property. See Parmelee v. Carlson, 77 F.3d 486 (table decision), 1996 WL 64701 (8th Cir. Feb.15, 1996) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of FTCA claim against BOP officer for negligent detention and subsequent disposal of personal property upheld pursuant to exception in § 2680(c)); Johnson v. United States, 2000 WL 968795 (D.Kan. June 27, 2000) (FTCA claim against BOP officers for loss of property during detention and transfer dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under exception in § 2680(c) for law enforcement officers); Dennison v. United States, 2000 WL 206317 (D.Kan. Jan.14, 2000) (FTCA claim against criminal investigator for BOP for loss of confiscated property dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under exception in § 2680(c) for law enforcement officers); Hernandez v. Hawks, 1995 WL 692982 (D.Minn. Sept.28, *1015 1995) (FTCA claim against BOP officers for loss of detained property dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under exception in § 2680(c) for law enforcement officers).
Employing the reasoning and instruction of the above discussed cases, the Court finds that this case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As alleged in his complaint, the plaintiff sued a BOP officer for loss of his property when it was detained pursuant to his Administrative Detention. As the preceding cases have instructed, Owen is a "law enforcement officer" under § 2680(c), and there is no question that Plaintiff's T.E.N.S. Unit and related equipment were detained as contraband during the Plaintiff's Administrative Detention. It is irrelevant whether Crawford had previously possessed the property with the knowledge and consent of the prison officials. Accordingly, the exception of § 2680(c) to the waiver of sovereign immunity applies the Defendant United States and all previously named Defendants in this matter, and this case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Given that the Court lacks jurisdiction, it need not address the government's remaining bases for dismissal or for summary judgment. See Johnson, 2000 WL 968795 at *4.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed in this opinion, the Court finds that the exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity, as found in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c), applies to the Defendant United States, along with all previously named Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to consider the Plaintiff's claim, and this case must be dismissed without prejudice. See Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006 (5th Cir.1998).
NOTES
[1]  At the time of that order, the Court, in error, failed to substitute the United States of America for all Defendants at that time. Accordingly, the Court hereby dismisses the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons as defendants, and hereby substitutes the United States of America as defendant.