Case Name: David G. RIGGS, Petitioner, v. J. Randolph BABBIT, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-17
Citations: 384 F. App'x 628
Docket Number: No. 09-71516
Parties: David G. RIGGS, Petitioner, v. J. Randolph BABBIT, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 384
Pages: 628–628

Head Matter:
David G. RIGGS, Petitioner, v. J. Randolph BABBIT, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Respondent.
No. 09-71516.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 17, 2010.
David G. Riggs, Studio City, CA, pro se.
Joseph Anthony Conte, Supervisory, Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Chief Counsel, Assistant General Counsel for Litigation, Esquire, DOT-U.S. Department of Transportation General Counsel’s Litigation Office, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
J. Randolph Babbit is substituted for his predecessor, Lynne A. Osmus, as Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, and therefore denies Riggs's request. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David G. Riggs petitions pro se for review of a final order of the National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB") revoking his pilot certificate. We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C § 1153(a). We must uphold the NTSB's decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not otherwise in accordance with the law. Kolek v. Engen, 869 F.2d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir.1989). We deny the petition for review.
The NTSB did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the severity of Riggs's violations warranted revocation of his pilot's certificate. See id. at 1285-86 (finding no abuse of discretion in the NTSB's revocation of a pilot's certificate where that pilot's infractions were more severe than others who had received suspensions); see also Administrator v. Oliveira and Morais, NTSB Order No. EA-4995 (Sept. 17, 2002).
Riggs's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.