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:
De SIMONE v. UNITED STATES.
No. 202.
Decided December 7, 1959.
Joseph K. Hertogs for petitioner.
Solicitor General- Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Wilkey and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. It appears from the Government’s suggestion of mootness and the memoranda filed in connection therewith that the petitioner is no longer in custody of the warden to whom the writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum was directed, and that the Government will take no further action under any order pursuant to which petitioner might be held in contempt. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals; the order of the District Court, issued May 29, 1959, directing the petitioner to appear before the grand jury; the order to show cause issued by the District Court on May 19, 1959; and the order of the District Court, entered April 3, 1959, denying the petitioner’s motion to quash the writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, and directing him to appear before the grand jury oh April 9, 1959, are vacated. The cause is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the proceeding as moot.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0