Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): marks omitted); see, e.g., Lindahl v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 470 U.S. 768, 779-80 n. 13, 105 S.Ct. 1620, 84 L.Ed.2d 674 (1985) (recog nizing that 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b) precludes all review of the Secretary of Labor’s compensation decision under the Federal Employee Compensation Act); Collins v. United States, 67 F.3d 284, 287-88 (Fed.Cir.1995) (finding that the plain language of the Military Claims Act, which states that “the settlement of a claim under [the Act] is final and conclusive,” provides clear and convincing evidence of legislative intent to preclude judicial review). Further, reviewability is not an all or nothing question: Congress may allow review of some issues underlying a decision, but prohibit review of others. See, e.g., Lindahl, 470 U.S. at 779-80, 105 S.Ct. 1620 (<HOLDING>); Harris v. Shinseki, 704 F.3d 946, 948 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that appellate review of an administrative agencys factual determinations is circumscribed (B) holding 5 usc  8347c bars review of agencys factual determinations but not questions of law and procedure (C) holding that questions of procedure are for the arbitrator not the courts (D) holding that an ineffective grievance procedure bars employers defense based on that procedure (E) holding that we review agency determinations of law de novo
Output (English): holding that we review agency determinations of law de novo