context: It is well settled that a fact-finder may rely on inconsistencies to support an adverse credibility determination.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 622 F.3d 1228, 1235
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that "inconsistencies ... adequately support the [administrative law judge's ("ALJ"
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1235 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that “inconsistencies ... adequately support the [administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) ] adverse credibility finding”); see also United States v. McCarty, 648 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir.2011) (observing that the district court “based its credibility determination on inconsistencies in [a witness’] testimony”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 648 F.3d 820, 829
citation_b.parenthetical: observing that the district court "based its credibility determination on inconsistencies in [a witness'] testimony"
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1235 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that “inconsistencies ... adequately support the [administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) ] adverse credibility finding”); see also United States v. McCarty, 648 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir.2011) (observing that the district court “based its credibility determination on inconsistencies in [a witness’] testimony”).