Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to support a conclusion .’ ” Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S. Ct. 206, 83 L. Ed. 126 (1938)). “As long as the agency’s methodology and procedures are reasonable means of effectuating the statutory purpose, and there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the agency’s conclusions, the court will not impose its own views as to the sufficiency of the agency’s investigation or question the agency’s methodology.” Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 10 CIT 399, 404-5 (1986), aff’d, 810 F.2d 1137 (Fed. Cir. 1987)); Atlantic Sugar, Ltd. v. United States, 744 F.2d 1556, 1562 (Fed. Cir., 1984); see also Negev Phosphates, Ltd. v. United States, 12 CIT 1074, 1076-77 (1988) (<HOLDING>). However, “[t]he court will find a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where judgment was not entered the appeals period neither triggered nor expired (B) holding that neither a state agency nor its officials acting in their official capacities may be sued under section 1983 (C) holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment (D) holding that the court neither weighs the evidence nor substitutes its own judgment for that of the agency (E) holding that court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency
Output (English): holding that court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency