discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shaw v. Life Insurance Co. of North America Where such discretion is vested in the administrator, “a district court may review the administrator’s determinations only for an abuse of discretion.” Taft v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 9 F.3d 1469 , 1471 n. 2 (9th Cir.1994); see also Nord v. Black & Decker Disability Plan, 356 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir.2004) (“[WJhere, as here, a plan administrator has ‘discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits,’ we review the benefits decision for abuse of discretion”), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 815 , 125 S.Ct. 62 , 160 L.Ed.2d 20 (2004).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lundquist v. Continental Casualty Co. Tremain v. Bell Industries, Inc., 196 F.3d 970, 976 (9th Cir.1999); see also Nord v. Black & Decker Disability Plan, 356 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. - — , 125 S.Ct. 62 , 160 L.Ed.2d 20 (2004) (same); Alford v. DCH Foundation Group Long-Term Disability Plan, 311 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir.2002) (same).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." State of Tennessee v. David Ivy Our supreme court has held that “a defendant is allowed ‘to present evidence at a re- sentencing hearing to establish residual doubt as a nonstatutory mitigating circumstance.’” State v. McKinney, 74 S.W.3d 291, 307 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 926 , 123 S. Ct. 321 (2002) (citing State v. Hartman, 42 S.W.3d 44, 55-56 (Tenn. 2001)); see also State v. Holton, 126 S.W.3d 845, 861 (Tenn.), cert. denied, – U.S. –, 125 S. Ct. 62 (2004).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Horn v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Moreover, if such a-conflict exists, the court must further distinguish between the mere appearance of a conflict of interest, which .arises by virtue of the administrator’s “economic stake in the benefit decision which it makes,” and a conflict that actually “caused a breach of the administrator’s fiduciary duty to the beneficiary.” Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., Inc., 45 F.3d 1317, 1322-23 (9th Cir.1995); see also Nord v. Black & Decker Disability Plan, 356 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,- — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 62 , 160 L.Ed.2d 20 (2004).