USCA4 Appeal: 25-1689 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/24/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1689

ANDREA SCOTT,

Petitioner,

v.

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Aviation Administration. (2025-02)

Submitted: November 20, 2025 Decided: November 24, 2025

Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrea Scott, Petitioner Pro Se. Margaret McGuire Murphy, Office of Chief Counsel, Aviation Litigation Division, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Jamaica, New York, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1689 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/24/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Andrea Scott petitions for review of a decision of the Federal Aviation

Administration (“FAA”) affirming the administrative law judge’s determination that Scott

interfered with the ability of crewmembers to perform their duties aboard an aircraft but

reversing the administrative law judge’s decision as to the imposed civil penalty. We deny

the petition for review.

In petitions for review of a final order of the FAA, “[f]indings of fact by

the . . . Administrator[,] . . . if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive.”

(c). “The Supreme Court has defined substantial evidence as more than a

mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support a conclusion.” Almy v. Sebelius,

(4th Cir. 2012)

(internal quotation marks omitted). “In reviewing for substantial evidence, we do not

undertake to re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute

our judgment for that of the [Administrator].” Craig v. Chater,

(4th Cir.

1996). When the record evidence could allow reasonable minds to differ as to whether a

claimant qualifies for relief, “the responsibility for that decision falls on the

[Administrator].”

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Additionally, this court will set aside only agency action that is “arbitrary,

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

. This review “is highly deferential, with a presumption in favor of finding the agency

action valid.” Almy,

(internal quotation marks omitted). “In practice, an

action will not be considered arbitrary and capricious so long as the agency has examined

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1689 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/24/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

the relevant data and provided an explanation of its decision that includes a rational

connection between the facts found and the choice made.”

(internal quotation marks

omitted).

Our review of the record confirms that substantial evidence supports the

Administrator’s decision and that there is otherwise no reversible error. We further find

that the Administrator’s determination regarding the imposed civil penalty complies with

the relevant authorities and is factually justified. Accordingly, we deny the petition for

review. Scott v. FAA, No. 2025-02 (FAA Apr. 23, 2025). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3