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:
COLEMAN v. THOMPSON, WARDEN, et al.
No. A-877 (91-8336).
Decided May 20, 1992
Per Curiam.
As the District Court below observed, this is now the 12th round of judicial review in a murder case which began 11 years ago. Yet despite having had 11 years to produce exculpatory evidence, Coleman has produced what, in the words of the District Court, does not even amount to a “colorable showing of ‘actual innocence.’” Civ. Action No. 92-0352-R (WD Va., May 12, 1992), p. 19. We are hardly well positioned to second-guess the District Court’s factual conclusion — we certainly have no basis for concluding that Coleman has produced “substantial evidence that he may be innocent.” Post, at 189 (emphasis added). Indeed, a good deal of Coleman’s effort in this latest round is devoted to an attempt to undermine an expert’s genetic analysis that further implicated him in the crime — an analysis conducted after trial at Coleman’s request under the supervision of the Commonwealth’s courts.
Contrary to the dissent’s characterization, Coleman’s claim is far from “substantially identical” to that of Leonel Herrera, see Herrera v. Collins, No. 91-7328, cert. granted, 502 U. S. 1085 (1992). In Herrera the District Court concluded that the evidence of innocence warranted further inquiry. See 954 F. 2d 1029 (CA5 1992), Here, in contrast, the District Court reviewed Coleman’s claim of innocence and rejected it on the merits.
The application for stay of execution presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the full Court is denied.
It is so ordered.
Justice Stevens concurs in the denial of a stay and would deny the petition for writ of certiorari.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0