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:
BERRY v. CITY OF CINCINNATI
No. 73-5245.
Decided November 5, 1973
Per Curiam.
Petitioner, who was serving a sentence for a misdemeanor offense when Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 (1972), was decided, sought relief in the state courts claiming that because Argersinger should be accorded retroactive effect and because his trial and sentencing were uncounseled, his conviction should be invalidated. The Supreme Court of Ohio refused to apply Argersinger to convictions occurring prior to that decision. City of Cincinnati v. Berry, 34 Ohio St. 2d 106, 296 N. E. 2d 532 (1973). Petitioner was enlarged on bail pending action on his claim and faces reincarceration should the judgment of the Ohio courts remain undisturbed. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari are granted, and the judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court is reversed. Those convicted prior to the decision in Argersinger are entitled to the constitutional rule enunciated in that case, Kitchens v. Smith, 401 U. S. 847 (1971); Williams v. United States, 401 U. S. 646, 653 and n. 6 (1971) (opinion of White, J.); Burgett v. Texas, 389 U. S. 109, 114 (1967); cf. Adams v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 278 (1972), if they allege and prove a bona fide, existing case or controversy sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court. Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 50-58 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U. S. 234, 237-238 (1968); Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 633-634, n. 2 (1968).
So ordered.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0