
    Douglas GILLISS, Petitioner, v. J. Randolph BABBITT, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Respondent.
    No. 10-70185.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 10, 2011.
    Douglas Gilliss, Solana Beach, CA, pro se.
    Amanda Kate Bruchs, Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, Naomi Tsuda, Esquire, Western-Pacific Region, FAA, Lawndale, CA, Theodore P. Byrne, Esquire, Assistant Chief Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, and therefore denies Gilliss’s request. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Douglas Gilliss petitions pro se for review of a final order of the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) revoking his airmen certificates. 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. Essery v. Dep’t of Transp., 857 F.2d 1286, 1288 (9th Cir.1988). The NTSB’s factual findings are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. We deny the petition for review.

The NTSB’s order concluding that Gil-liss intentionally falsified an endorsement sicker, in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 61.59(a)(2), is supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. See Hart v. McLucas, 535 F.2d 516, 519 (9th Cir.1976) (the elements of intentional false statements are falsity, materiality and knowledge); see also Andrzejewski v. FAA, 563 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir.2009) (“The NTSB must leave undisturbed an ALJ’s credibility finding ‘unless there is a compelling reason or the finding was clearly erroneous.’ ”)

The NTSB did not abuse its discretion by revoking Gilliss’s airmen certificates. See Olsen v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 14 F.3d 471, 476 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Adm’r v. Rea, No. EA-3467, 1991 NTSB LEXIS 274, at *9 (NTSB Dec. 26, 1991) for the proposition that “intentional falsification is a serious offense which in virtually all cases the [FAA] imposes and the [NTSB] affirms revocation” (alteration in original)).

Gilliss’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.
     