## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1535

___________ Lee H. Allen, * * Petitioner, * * Appeal from an Order of v. * the National Transportation * Safety Board. National Transportation Safety Board; * [PUBLISHED] Federal Aviation Administration, * * Respondents. *

___________ Submitted: September 24, 1998 Filed: November 5, 1998

___________ Before WOLLMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Lee H. Allen petitions for review of the National Transportation Safety Board’s (Board) award of attorney fees. We affirm. In a consolidated action, the F ederal Aviation Administration sought revocation of All en’s airline transport pilot certificate and the air carrier operating certificate o f Excaliber Aviation, Inc. (Excaliber). Allen and Excaliber were represente d by the same counsel. Following a hearing, the Board reduced the revocation of Allen’s pilot-2-

certificate to a 180-day suspension and affirmed the revocation of Excaliber’ s certificate. Allen applied for attorney fees and expenses as a prevailing party pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(1), (4) (1997). Th e Board awarded Allen approximately fifteen percent of the amount claimed. We will affirm an agency decision if it “i s not ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not supported by law.’” See Reder v. Administrator of th e Fed. Avia tion Admin. , 116 F.3d 1261, 1263 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting Trans-Allie d Audit Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm ’n , 33 F.3d 1024, 1030 (8th Cir. 1994)). We can modify the Board’s decision only if it is not supported by substan tial evidence. See Sm ith v. National Transp. Safety Bd. , 992 F.2d 849, 852 (8th Cir. 1993). Havin g re viewed the record, we agree that the agency’s award is supported by substantia l evidence. The Board determined that Allen was partially successful in his defense of the claims. A party who achieves limited success is entitled to rec over a reasonable fee commensurate with the results obtained. See Hensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 440 (1983); Jenkins v. Missouri , 127 F.3d 709, 716 (8th Cir. 1997) . In determining Allen’s award, the Board requested a summary of attorney fees. Despite this request, Alle n failed to provide a breakdown of f ees incurred in defending the claims brought against him. In the absenc e of such evidence, the award of attorney fees cannot be said to be unreasonable in light of the results obtained

. See Hensley , 461 U.S. 437 n.12 (quoting Nadeau v. Helgemoe , 581 F.2d 275, 279 (1st Cir. 1978)).
In Hensley , 461 U.S. at 435 n.11, the Court disapproved of applying a stric t mathematical formula when awarding attorn ey fees. Allen prevailed on approximately fifteen percent of his claims, and the Board awa rded him fifteen percent of his attorney fee s. Nothing in the record, however, leads us to believe that the Board based it s award sole ly upon a strict mathematical formula. Cf. Gumbhir v. Curators of th e University of Minnesota , Nos. 97-3066+, slip op. at 8-9 (8th Cir. Oct. 7, 1998 ) (reasonable fee could not exceed the percentage of the damages recovered).-3-

Alternati vely, Allen claims that he is entitled to attorney fees because th e demand by the agency was substantially in excess of the decision of the adjudicative officer and

was unreasonable when compared with the officer’s decision. 5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(4). The B oard made a specific finding that the demand that Allen’s certificate be revoked was not excessive and that the agency was su bstantially justified in seeking suc h revocation. Because substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports this finding, we will not disturb the Board’s decision.
The Board’s order is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.