opinion: BELL v. KELLY, WARDEN
  No. 07-1223.
  Argued November 12, 2008
  Decided November 17, 2008
  Richard R Bress argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Maureen E. Mahoney, J. Scott Ballenger, Matthew K. Roskoski, Robert Lee, Jonathan P. Sheldon, and Randi R. Vickers.
  Katherine B. Burnett, Senior Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General, and Jerry P. Slonaker, Senior Assistant Attorney General.
  Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for Former State Court Judges by Susan J. Kohlmann; for the National Association of Federal Defenders et al. by Andrea D. Lyon, Pamela Harris, and Frances H. Pratt; and for the Virginia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by Ashley C. Parrish and Marvin D. Miller.
  Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Idaho et al. by Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General of Idaho, and Jessica M. Lorello, L. LaMont Anderson, and Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorneys General, by Kevin T. Kane, Chief State’s Attorney of Connecticut, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Troy King of Alabama, Dustin McDaniel of Arkansas, John Suthers of Colorado, Joseph R. Biden III of Delaware, Bill McCollum of Florida, Thurbert E. Baker of Georgia, Mark J. Bennett of Hawaii, Steve Carter of Indiana, Steve Six of Kansas, Jack Conway of Kentucky, Martha Coakley of Massachusetts, Lori Swanson of Minnesota, Jim Hood of Mississippi, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon of Missouri, Mike McGrath of Montana, Jon Bruning of Nebraska, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Kelly A. Ayotte of New Hampshire, Anne Milgram of New Jersey, Gary K. King of New Mexico, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, W. A. Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., of Pennsylvania, Henry D. McMaster of South Carolina, Lawrence E. Long of South Dakota, Greg Abbott of Texas, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, Robert M. McKenna of Washington, and Bruce A Salzburg of Wyoming; for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation by Kent S. Scheidegger; and for the Virginia Association of Commonwealth’s Attorneys by Joel R. Bmnscom.
  Per Curiam.
  The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
  It is so ordered.
instruction: 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.