Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that when “‘an agency’s failure to state its reasoning or to adopt an intelligible deci-sional standard is ... glaring ... we can declare with confidence that the agency action was arbitrary and capricious’ ” (quoting Checkosky v. SEC, 23 F.3d 452, 463 (D.C. Cir. 1994))). At the very least, the agency must have reviewed relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation establishing a “ ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made,’” Ark Initiative, 816 F.3d at 127 (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983)); Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc., 724 F.3d at 249 (same); see also EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1584, 1602, 188 L.Ed.2d 775 (2014) (<HOLDING>). “[C]onclusory statements will not do; an 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that agency retained discretion to alter its course under a regulation provided it gave a reasonable explanation for doing so (B) holding that the plan administrator abused its discretion when it ignored contrary evidence without explanation (C) holding that even though the government retained discretion as to how to mark or fence dropoffs it did not retain discretion whether to do so (D) holding that a 103day delay in payment did not amount to bad faith because the carrier gave a reasonable explanation for the delay in payment it was continuing its investigation (E) holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address it in the first instance
Output (English): holding that a 103day delay in payment did not amount to bad faith because the carrier gave a reasonable explanation for the delay in payment it was continuing its investigation