US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0716 

FAA Case No. 2012S0150128 

vs. Judge Sullivan 

RECEIVED 

AUG 2 5 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

TYLER PENNYWITT, 

Respondent. 

SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT 

By Order dated June 27, 2014, the Judge instructed the Respondent to file: (3a) Any proof of 

mailing by the FAA attorney of the Respondents request for Hearing dated April 17, 2013. (b) The 

financial documents that the Respondent submitted to the United States Attorney's Office as part of his 

criminal case in the U. S. District Court. (c) Any new financial documents that the Respondent would 

like to submit, from the date of his criminal sentencing in 2013 to the present, to supplement his 

assertions of financial hardship (d) Any documentation regarding the type and extent of community 

service performed by the Respondent in accordance with his federal criminal sentence. 

In response to (3a), The FAA Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty dated April 11, 2013, 

instructed the Respondent to request a hearing within 15 days via expedited courier to the Hearing 

Docket Clerk. The copy of this certified mailing has been provided. The Notice further instructed that a 

copy of the hearing request must be sent to Attorney Stevenson via U.S. Mail. This mailing occurred at 

the same time as the certified letter; however, there is no documentation for regular mail. It is 

unfortunate that FAA attorney's office did not receive or cannot locate the request. However, Attorney 

Stevenson has confirmed that the Hearing Docket Clerk did receive the certified mailing in a timely 

manner. 

The Respondent has included the following Exhibit in response to (3b): 

1. The Presentence Report Financial Condition/Ability to Pay (Exhibit R-10) 

The Respondent has included the following Exhibits in response to (3c): 

1. The Respondent's 2013 Federal Income Tax Return (Exhibit R-11) 

2. The Respondent's monthly financial statements reported to US probation officer for the 

months of (February- June 2014) (Exhibit R-12) 

3. Also Respondent submits attorney bill for representation in criminal case totaling 

$10,000. This money was borrowed from a family member to be repaid at a later date. 

(Exhibit R-14) 

1 
The Respondent has included the following Exhibit in response to {3d): 

1. The Respondent's Monthly Schedule of Hours Worked for community service submitted 

to the US probation officer (Exhibit R-13) 

The Judge also encouraged to the Respondent to read Hudson v. United States, 522 U. S. 93 (1997) 

which he has done. Additionally, the Respondent has attached Judge Timothy Corrigan response to the 

Motion to Vacate based on Double Jeopardy grounds. (R-15) The ruling refers to Robertson v. U.S. ex 

rei. Watson, 560 U.S. 272, 275 (2010). In this case, a sovereign cannot bring a second prosecution 

against a defendant for the same offense. 

In response to the Supplemental Submission on Motion for Summary Judgment submitted by Attorney 

Stevenson addressing the FAA's involvement in my criminal prosecution, the JSO contacted the FAA and 

Inspector Gramzinski began an investigation into potential violations. The JSO asked Inspector 

Gramzinski about the FAA pursuing criminal charges against the Respondent. Inspector Gramzinski 

informed the JSO that the FAA does not bring criminal charges but that the DOT does. Inspector 

Gramzinski referred the JSO to DOT Special Agent Glenda White and he called her to inform her that he 

had referred the JSO to her. Special Agent White contacted JSO and began a criminal investigation. 

Later, Inspector Gramzinski provided SA White with a copy of the FAA's evidence for exculpatory 

evidence in the criminal case. Therefore, the FAA was aware that a criminal investigation was being 

conducted. 

During the telephone conversation of September 11, 2012, SA White stated to the Respondent that the 

FAA is an agency within the DOT (Gov't Exhibit J in Supplemental Submission on Motion for Summary 

Judgment). This connection allows a reasonable assumption that she was collecting and sharing 

information for both civil and criminal prosecution. 

This appearance is further supported by the fact that SA Glenda White was in attendance at every 

criminal court appearance made by the Respondent. Within days after the criminal court appearance, 

the Respondent received USPS mail communication from the FAA. For example, on April 10, 2013 the 

Respondent was in federal court to enter his guilty plea and on April11, 2013, the FAA issued the Final 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty. On August 1, 2013, the Respondent was sentenced in federal court 

and on August 8, 2013, the FAA issued the Order Assessing Civil Penalty. 

While the FAA did not prosecute the criminal case, there is certainly every appearance that the FAA was 

aware of each step of the criminal proceedings. 

During the telephone conference of June 26, 2014, Judge Sullivan asked the Respondent about the 

circumstances surrounding the laser light incident. While these details were irrelevant during the 

criminal prosecution, perhaps they bear relevance in the civil court. The Respondent was playing in his 

backyard with his 3-year old son and a laser light he had recently received as a gift. The helicopter was 

merely an unexpected target in the sky. The Respondent's intentions certainly were not to disrupt the 

flight path or to cause harm. The specific details of the evening of June 4, 2012 are documented in 

2 
Attorney Friday's letter to Inspector Gramzinski (Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit R-3) and the 

Respondent's apology letter to the JSO helicopter pilot (Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit R-3). 

The Respondent realizes that the FAA is extremely concerned about laser pointers being flashed at 

aircraft. Nevertheless, this act of indiscretion was not something that the Respondent did with intent to 

cause a disaster. At the time, he did not realize the significance of his actions. It is incredible that the 

manufacturer is not legally required to issue a warning on the label of these products. To that end, 

Respondent now realizes the potential adverse consequences of his actions, has expressed remorse, and 

has completed all the restitutions ordered by the criminal court. 

:~~ctfully sub~itte?jis /1 day of August, 2014 

u 7 .;/1 r~yv 

Tyler J. Penny~ Respondent 

3 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Original and one copy via USPS: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building -Suite 2W1000 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

One copy via USPS: 

Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

One copy via USPS: 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 
EXHIBITS R-10 Through R-14 

Are Located At The FAA Hearing Docket 

But Are Not Publicly Available 

As Per ALJ Sullivan's Instructions to the Hearing Docket 

Vicki Leemon, AGC-430 
(Exhibit R-15) 
Tyler J. Pennywitt 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Mitch Stone [mitch@stonelockett.com] 

Thursday, July 10,201411:10 AM 

Tyler J. Pennywitt 

Judge denied our motion but I suggest using this order to move to dismiss the FAA case 

PENNYWITT v. U.S.c> '•!(i'i. ; H ;, ,; ,. 

JOHN TYLER PENNYWIIT, Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. 

United States District Court, MD. Florida, Jacksonville Division. 

July 7, 2014. 

John Tyler Pennywitt, Petitioner, represented by Mitchell A. Stone, Stone Lockett. 

United States of America, Respondent, represented by Jay Carl Taylor, US Attorney's Office. 

ORDER 

TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge. 

This case is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment and Sentence (Doc. 1 ), to which 

the government responded. (Doc. 6). Pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, the Court 

has determined that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary to decide the instant petition. 

Petitioner was indicted on October 4, 2012 on two counts, which alleged that he knowingly aimed the beam of a laser 

pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States on two occasions. (Doc. 1 at 2). Subsequently, 

Petitioner was informed that the FAA sought an $11,000 penalty against him for the same conduct. (Doc. 1 at 3). 

Petitioner pled guilty to one count of the criminal indictment and, on August 1, 2013, was sentenced to one year of 

probation. (Doc. 1 at 7). On August 8, 2013, the FAA issued a final order imposing the $11,000 penalty against Petitioner. 

(Doc. 1 at 7). Petitioner contested the imposition of the fine, and administrative proceedings over the fine are underway. 

(Doc. 6 at 2). A final hearing in that case is set for September 2014, and Petitioner will be able to appeal any adverse 

judgment. (Doc. 6 at 2-3). 

Rather than appeal from his criminal sentence, Petitioner flied a motion under 28 U.S. C.§ 2255 on August 14, 2013. 

(Doc. 1 ). Petitioner seeks to vacate and set aside his criminal sentence and judgment so that he can move to dismiss the 

charges against him on double jeopardy grounds. (Doc. 1). Petitioner argues that, until the imposition of any civil penalty, 

he was unable to move to set aside his plea or move to dismiss the charges against him on double jeopardy grounds. 

(Doc. 1 at 7). Had Petitioner known that the FAA would assess a civil penalty as soon as he was sentenced, he would 

have moved to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, and not gone forward with sentencing. (Doc. 1 at 7). 

Indeed, Petitioner alleges that the FAA waited to impose the civil fine until after his criminal case was over to avoid any 

potential double jeopardy defense. (Doc. 1 at 8). 

Under the Double Jeopardy Clause, a sovereign cannot bring a second prosecution against a defendant for the same 

offense. Robertson v. U.S. ex rei. Watson, 560 U.S. 272, 275 (2010). Petitioner does not, however, seek to prevent a 

second prosecution1 Instead, Petitioner asks this Court to go back in time and vacate his first prosecution in light of a 

later proceeding. 

1 
Petitioner cannot have his choice of which proceeding he would like to challenge. He was prosecuted for, pled guilty to, 

and was sentenced for a crime before any civil fine was imposed. As such, his prosecution, the government's first attempt 

to punish him for his misconduct, did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Whether a subsequent proceeding in 

another forum violates the Double Jeopardy Clause is not for this Court to decide. 

Accordingly it is hereby 

ORDERED: 

Petitioner's Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment and Sentence (Doc. 1) is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED 

FOOTNOTES 

1. It is unclear whether any potential civil fine levied by the FAA would even qualify as a criminal punishment under the 

Double Jeopardy Clause under the criteria laid out in Hudson v. United States, 522 lJ S~93 (1997). However, this Court 

need not address that issue. 

madtett :4. Sto.te. &49. 

1!?«<VU( ~ ~ 7<14 ./!=-

STONE- LOCKETT. P.A. 

1540 THE GREENS WAY 

MARSH LANDING BUSINESS PARK 

JACKSONVILLE BEACH. FL322.50 

T: 904.858.98 1 8 

F: 904.858.981 9 

M: 904.536.9309 

2