Opinion ID: 703565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Judgment for the Secretary.

Text: 4 Each of Hollcroft's arguments on appeal challenges the district court's findings of fact. We therefore conduct our review under a highly deferential standard; we will reverse only if the district court clearly erred in making those findings. Campbell v. Wood, 18 F.3d 662, 681 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 2125 (1994). 5 The case was fully tried and the court had ample evidence to support every factual finding that Hollcroft now challenges. Upon review of the record, we are satisfied that the district court did not clearly err in discounting the evidence adduced by Hollcroft pertaining to her steady improvement in her previous position as an Office Auditor. The United States introduced into the record ample evidence to mitigate both the relevance and weight of Hollcroft's evidence. 6 We are also convinced that the district court did not clearly err in weighing either her testimony about the relative complexities of the Office Auditor and Revenue Agent positions, or evidence that she was required to carry over several cases from her Office Audit post during her Revenue Agent training period. Given the complete body of evidence, we are simply not left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed by the district court. Concrete Pipe & Prod. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust, 113 S.Ct. 2264, 2280 (1993) (setting forth criterion for finding clear error). We therefore affirm the district court's judgment for the Secretary. 7