Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): The administrative record contains no written approval or signature of the Interchange Project as a whole by FHWA in the November / December 2001 time-frame, although it does reflect that FHWA signed off on the ConnDOT requested design exceptions on the same day they were requested, November 9, 2001. File 238 at 17. The Court regrets the lack of clarity on this critical issue of the date of final design approval given how important that date is to the Section 4(f) process. Nonetheless, a presumption of regularity attaches to agency representations and decisions. See, e.g., Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 419, 91 S.Ct. 814, (“The designation of the Administrative Record ... is entitled to a presumption of administrative regularity.”); Miley v. Principi, 366 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, in view of this presumption of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that conditional guilty pleas are valid when entered into in accordance with certain standards (B) holding that statements are admissible in absence of showing that parents were not notified in accordance with statute (C) recognizing that the general rule that a ministerial officer cannot in a judicial proceeding attack the validity of a law imposing duties on him is subject to the exception that such a law may be challenged where it involves the disbursement of public funds (D) recognizing that a court may reverse the pelrbs actions where those actions are arbitrary capricious or an abuse of discretion    not supported by substantial evidence on the record taken as a whole or otherwise not in accordance with law (E) holding that the presumption of regularity may be employed to establish that certain ministerial steps were taken in accordance with the requirements of law
Output (English): holding that statements are admissible in absence of showing that parents were not notified in accordance with statute