Douglas Gilliss v. J. Babbitt

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 10 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOUGLAS GILLISS, No. 10-70185
Petitioner, FAA No. SE-18703
v.
MEMORANDUM *
J. RANDOLPH BABBITT, Administrator,
Federal Aviation Administration,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
National Transportation Safety Board
Submitted August 2, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N. R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Douglas Gilliss petitions pro se for review of a final order of the National
Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) revoking his airmen certificates. We have
jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 1153(a). We must uphold the NTSB’s decision
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument, and therefore denies Gilliss’s request. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2).
unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not otherwise in
accordance with the law. Essery v. Dep’t of Transp., 857 F.2d 1286, 1288 (9th Cir.
1988). The NTSB’s factual findings are conclusive when supported by substantial
evidence in the record. Id. We deny the petition for review.
The NTSB’s order concluding that Gilliss intentionally falsified an
endorsement sicker, in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 61.59(a)(2), is supported by
substantial evidence and free of legal error. See Hart v. McLucas, 535 F.2d 516,
519 (9th Cir. 1976) (the elements of intentional false statements are falsity,
materiality and knowledge); see also Andrzejewski v. FAA, 563 F.3d 796, 799 (9th
Cir. 2009) (“The NTSB must leave undisturbed an ALJ’s credibility finding
‘unless there is a compelling reason or the finding was clearly erroneous.’”)
The NTSB did not abuse its discretion by revoking Gilliss’s airmen
certificates. See Olsen v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 14 F.3d 471, 476 (9th Cir.
1994) (citing Adm’r v. Rea, No. EA-3467, 1991 NTSB LEXIS 274, at *9 (NTSB
Dec. 26, 1991) for the proposition that “intentional falsification is a serious offense
which in virtually all cases the [FAA] imposes and the [NTSB] affirms revocation”
(alteration in original)).
Gilliss’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-70185