What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify whether administrative action occurred in the context of the case prior to the onset of litigation. The activity may involve an administrative official as well as that of an agency. To determine whether administration action occurred in the context of the case, consider the material which appears in the summary of the case preceding the Court's opinion and, if necessary, those portions of the prevailing opinion headed by a I or II. Action by an agency official is considered to be administrative action except when such an official acts to enforce criminal law. If an agency or agency official "denies" a "request" that action be taken, such denials are considered agency action. Exclude: a "challenge" to an unapplied agency rule, regulation, etc.; a request for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against agency action which, though anticipated, has not yet occurred; a mere request for an agency to take action when there is no evidence that the agency did so; agency or official action to enforce criminal law; the hiring and firing of political appointees or the procedures whereby public officials are appointed to office; attorney general preclearance actions pertaining to voting; filing fees or nominating petitions required for access to the ballot; actions of courts martial; land condemnation suits and quiet title actions instituted in a court; and federally funded private nonprofit organizations.

Opinion:
CLAIBORNE v. UNITED STATES
No. 06-5618.
Argued February 20, 2007
Decided June 4, 2007
Michael Dwyer argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Lee T. Lawless and David Hemingway.
Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Fisher, Dan Himmelfarb, Matthew D. Roberts, Nina Goodman, and Jeffrey P. Singdahlsen
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for Families Against Mandatory Minimums by Gregory L. Poe, Mary Price, and Peter Goldberger; for Federal Public and Community Defenders et al. by Thomas W. Hillier II, Amy Baron-Evans, Laura E. Mate, and Sara E. Noonan; for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by Miguel A. Estrada, David Debold, and Jeffrey L. Fisher; for the New York Council of Defense Lawyers by Alexandra A E. Shapiro and Paul H. Schwartz; for the Sentencing Project et al. by Matthew M. Shors and Pammela Quinn; and for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. by Daniel J. Popeo and Paul D. Kamenar.
Robert E. Toone and Katherine J. Fick filed a brief for Senator Edward M. Kennedy et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for Law Professors Who Study Sentencing Reform by Edward S. Lee; and for the United States Sentencing Commission by David C. Frederick and Pamela O. Barron.
Per Curiam.
The Court is advised that the petitioner died in St. Louis, Missouri, on May 30, 2007. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is therefore vacated as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).
It is so ordered.

Question: Did administrative action occur in the context of the case?

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0