David S. Haeg v. MICHAEL P. HUERTA, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID S. HAEG,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL P. HUERTA, Administrator,
Federal Aviation Administration,
Respondent.
No. 13-73737
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
National Transportation Safety Board
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
David S. Haeg petitions pro se for review of a final order of the National
Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) suspending his commercial pilot
certificate. We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 1153(a). We will sustain an
FILED
DEC 17 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Haeg’s request for oral
argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

-- 1 of 2 --

agency’s decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not
otherwise in accordance with the law, and its factual findings unless they are not
supported by the substantial evidence. Essery v. Dep’t of Transp., 857 F.2d 1286,
1288 (9th Cir. 1988). We deny the petition.
The NTSB’s order concluding that Haeg flew his plane recklessly and too
low over a congested area, in violation of federal regulations, is supported by
substantial evidence and free of legal error. See 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.13(a), 91.119(c)
(prohibiting careless or reckless aircraft operation and setting a minimum altitude
for operation of aircraft over congested areas); Andrzejewski v. FAA, 563 F.3d 796,
799 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The NTSB must leave undisturbed an [administrative law
judge’s] credibility finding ‘unless there is a compelling reason or the finding was
clearly erroneous.’”).
The administrative law judge did not abuse his discretion in rejecting Haeg’s
impeachment evidence as irrelevant. See 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) (providing for
exclusion of “irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence”); Atl.-Pac.
Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 52 F.3d 260, 263 (9th Cir. 1995) (standard of review).
We reject as unsupported Haeg’s contentions regarding alleged prosecutorial
misconduct and alleged judicial bias.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-73737 2

-- 2 of 2 --