non of the Northern Exit in 1970— her fact-based exegesis is beside the point. The subjective intent of government officials is irrelevant to the discretionary function analysis. See Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 325, 111 S.Ct. 1267; Irving, 162 F.3d at 166. It is therefore of no practical consequence that Park Service officials failed to mull particular safety issues when they planned the Trading Post’s rehabilitation. See Gotha v. United States, 115 F.3d 176, 180 (3d Cir.1997) (“The test is not whether the government actually considered each possible alternative in the universe of options, but whether the conduct was of the type associated with the exercise of official discretion.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Kiehn v. United States, 984 F.2d 1100, 1105 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted); Richardson v. United
holding that even if the alleged failure to present mitigating evidence was an oversight and not a tactical choice by counsel it was harmless holding that it is unnecessary for government employees to make an actual conscious decision regarding policy factors for it is irrelevant whether the alleged failure  was a matter of deliberate choice or a mere oversight holding that it is not recognizing that mere passage of time does not make evidence irrelevant as it will also depend on the nature of the evidence and its relation to what is to be proven holding that remand is unnecessary when it is clear that the same decision would have been reached in the absence of the errors