Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): review. See 46 U.S.C. §§ 6101— 6104, 6301-6307. As a result, while the sailors may seek review of the Coast Guard’s actions under other grants of federal jurisdiction, they must do so within the framework of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). See 5 U.S.C. § 702; accord Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 103-07, 97 S.Ct. 980, 983-85, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). The APA permits “non-statutory” judicial review only of “final agency action.” 5 U.S.C. § 704 (“Agency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review.”); see also Bell v. New Jersey, 461 U.S. 773, 778, 103 S.Ct. 2187, 2191, 76 L.Ed.2d 312 (1983) (recognizing “strong presumption” that judicial review will be available onl Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Normally, the plaintiff must await resolution 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing doctrine (B) holding that defendant in second suit was in privity for res judicata purposes because his interests were aligned with those of defendant in first suit which concerned same facts (C) holding allegation made in enforcement suit does not impose the kind of legal obligation with which the finality doctrine is concerned (D) holding that attorneys fees and costs may not be awarded as child support when they are incurred in a suit to modify the parentchild relationship that does not involve the enforcement of a child support obligation (E) holding that the obligation does not terminate upon death
Output (English): holding that defendant in second suit was in privity for res judicata purposes because his interests were aligned with those of defendant in first suit which concerned same facts