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:
MICHAELS ENTERPRISES, INC., et al. v. UNITED STATES.
No. 571.
Decided March 9, 1964.
Morris A. Shenker and Murry L. Randall for petitioners.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner James A. Michaels, Jr., is president of petitioner Michaels Enterprises, Inc., a corporate retail dealer in alcoholic beverages. Petitioners were convicted by a jury in the Eastern District of Missouri on both counts of a two-count indictment. The first count charged them with failure to “produce” or to “preserve” certain purchase records, in violation of 72 Stat. 1400, 26 U. S. C. § 5603 (b)(5). The second count charged them with failure “to keep” certain purchase records or “make required entries therein” in violation of 72 Stat. 1400, 26 U. S. C. § 5603 (b)(1). Petitioner James A. Michaels, Jr., was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and fined $1,000 on the first count; he was fined an additional $1,000 on the second count. Petitioner Michaels Enterprises, Inc., was fined $1,000 on each of the two counts.
The critical issue, as we see it, is whether the record contains sufficient evidence of violations of the two counts to support the imposition of nonconcurrent sentences. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit refused to consider the “question of sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict,” on the ground that petitioners “did not move for an acquittal at the close of all the evidence.” 321 F. 2d 913, 917. The record clearly shows, however, that petitioners did move for “judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence,” as well as “at the close of the government’s case.”
The writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for consideration of the sufficiency of the evidence.
It is so ordered.
This is the maximum penalty provided by the statute.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0