u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECEIvED 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION MAY -5 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

TYLER PENNYWITT., 

Respondent. 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0716 

FAA Case No. 2012S0150128 

Judge Sullivan 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.218(f)(5), and Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the FAA hereby moves for summary judgment in this matter. No genuine issue of 

material fact exists to be determined, and the FAA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As 

grounds for the motion, the FAA states the following. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

On April 11, 2013, the FAA issued a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty against 

Respondent, and the Complaint was filed on August 30, 2013. The Complaint alleged that on or 

about June 4, 2012, Respondent had aimed a beam of light from a laser pointer at a Jacksonville 

Sheriffs Office (JSO) helicopter, illuminating the cockpit and interfering with the 

crewmembers' performance of their duties. Complaint~~ 1-4. As a result, the Complaint alleged 

that Respondent had violated§ 91.11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations and that a civil penalty 

of$11,000 was appropriate. !d.~~ 5-7. 

In his Answer, the Respondent denied all of the factual allegations. Answer ~~ 1-4. 

Respondent also asserted that he should not be "charged twice for the same crime." Answer. 
STATEMENT OF THE UNIDSPUTED FACTS 

On June 4, 2012, Respondent knowingly aimed a laser pointer at a helicopter. See Exhibit 

A '1['1[1-2. The aircraft was a helicopter of the Jacksonville Sheriffs Office (JSO), and 

Respondent successfully illuminated the cockpit of the helicopter. Exhibit B '1[ 4. After the initial 

laser strike, the police helicopter orbited the origination point of the laser while police ground 

units travelled to the scene. Id During this time frame, Respondent used the laser to illuminate 

the helicopter approximately six more times. Id 

The laser illumination of the helicopter's cockpit interfered with the pilot's ability to 

operate the aircraft by interfering with the pilot's ability to read his instrument panel or see 

outside of the helicopter. Id '1!'11 4, 6 These effects continued even after the immediate laser 

strikes, as the pilot's vision took time to readjust to the ambient illumination. Id '1[6. 

The JSO located and arrested Respondent that evening. See Exhibit C. Respondent was 

criminally charged in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. 

Respondent ultimately pled guilty to and was convicted of a violation of 18 U.S. C. § 39A, which 

provides that "Whoever knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special 

aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at the flight path of such an aircraft, shall be fmed 

under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both." Exhibits D, E, F, G. Respondent 

was sentenced to a one-year term of probation, 50 hours of community service, and a $100 

assessment for one count of conviction. Exhibit G. Respondent was not sentenced to a term of 

imprisonment or required to pay a fme or restitution. See Exhibit G. 

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 

There is no dispute that Respondent knowingly aimed a laser pointer at the JSO 

helicopter. As Respondent admits that he has no knowledge of the effect of his laser on the flight 
crew of the helicopter, the pilot's statements as to the fact of the laser strikes and the effects of 

the laser on the pilot's ability to operate the aircraft are also undisputed, and establish that 

Respondent's laser use interfered with flight operations, in violation of § 91.11. Additionally, 

sanction sought is appropriate, and the Double Jeopardy clause does not operate to bar a 

subsequent civil action arising out of the same conduct as that of a prior criminal conviction. 

ARGUMENT 

"A party may make a motion for decision, regarding all or any part of the proceedings, at 

any time before the administrative law judge has issued an initial decision in the proceedings. 

The administrative law judge shall grant a party's motion for decision if the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, matters that the administrative law judge has 

officially noticed, or evidence introduced during the hearing show that there is no genuine issue 

of material fact and that the party making the motion is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. 

The party making the motion for decision has the burden of showing that there is no genuine 

issue of material fact disputed by the parties." 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218(±)(5). 

Violation 

In this case, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Respondent had admitted 

to in discovery, and pled guilty to, knowingly shining a laser pointer at the aircraft as alleged in 

the Complaint. See Exhibits A, D, G. The declaration of the pilot establishes that Respondent's 

laser successfully illuminated the cockpit of the aircraft and impaired the vision of the pilot, thus 

interfering with his ability to operate the aircraft. See Exhibit B n 4, 6. Respondent has admitted 

that he has no knowledge of what occurred in the aircraft and, therefore, cannot establish a 

genuine issue of material fact on this point. See Exhibit A ~~ 3-4. These undisputed facts 

establish a violation of§ 91.11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, which provides that "No 
person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of 

the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated." 

Sanction 

Further, the sanction sought in this case is appropriate under the circumstances. Effective 

May 1, 2012, laser incidents have been a special emphasis enforcement item for the FAA, as 

reflected in Appendix H to FAA Order 2150.3B. 1 Not only are laser cases in general covered by 

this special emphasis enforcement program, but the harm caused by Respondent's actions is 

exactly the sort of harm that the program seeks to prevent. See FAA Order 2150.3B at H-4 

(listing the safety hazards that can be caused by laser strikes). That Order provides that for a 

single, first-time laser violation that is inadvertent or not deliberate, a penalty in the range of 

$2200 to $4399 is appropriate. FAA Order 2150.3B at H-4 ~2. For a non-airman engaged in a 

deliberate laser violation, however, the FAA seeks the statutory maximum penalty of $11,000. 

Id at H-5 ~ 3. 

In general, FAA sanction guidance presumes a first-time violator and an inadvertent 

violation, and applying deliberation as an aggravating factor. FAA Order 2150.3B at 7-5, 7-92 

However, there are some violations that are generally inherently deliberate, including interfering 

with a crewmember. Id at 7-10 n.4. Normally, for a violation that is generally inherently 

deliberate, the consequence is that the deliberate nature of the violation is not applied as an 

aggravating factor, because the sanction range already takes the deliberate nature of the violation 

into account. Id However, this general principle is not applicable to laser interference cases 

under the special emphasis enforcement program that has been in place since May 2012. See 

FAA Order 2150.3B at H-5 ~ 3. That more recent and more specific policy overrides the more 

1 A copy of the applicable portions of Appendix H of FAA Order 2150.3B is attached as Exhibit H. 

2 A copy of the applicable portions of Chapter 7 of FAA Order 2150.3B is attached as Exhibit I. 
general policy, and deliberation is an aggravating factor in laser cases. Compare FAA Order 

2150.3B at 7-10 n.4 with FAA Order 2150.3B at H-4, H-5. 

In this case, as in the typical laser case, the conduct was deliberate. Respondent did not 

inadvertently shine a laser pointer at the JSO helicopter, he did so deliberately. The deliberate 

nature of the offense is emphasized because Respondent did not simply illuminate the cockpit of 

the helicopter once, but continued to illuminate the helicopter after it began orbiting the area in 

an effort to locate him. See Exhibit B ~ 4. 

The FAA also notes that under its general sanction guidance, "the FAA does not 

generally take punitive legal enforcement action for the same conduct, unless it believes the 

criminal sanctions are not sufficient to provide an adequate deterrent for future violations by the 

violator and others similarly situated ... If the FAA decides to proceed with a punitive civil 

enforcement action in addition to the criminal prosecution, it generally considers the criminal 

penalties incurred in those proceedings in determining the appropriate sanction to be sought in 

the FAA's punitive enforcement action." FAA Order 2150-3B at 7-7. In this case, the FAA does 

not believe that the criminal sanctions imposed are sufficient to provide adequate deterrent, and 

the minimal criminal penalties imposed in Respondent's criminal case do not provide a basis for 

reducing the civil sanction sought in this case. While Respondent was criminally convicted, he 

was hardly punished beyond the mere fact of that conviction, only being required to serve one 

year of probation and perform minimal community service. See Exhibit G. 

In light of the special safety concerns involved in laser cases, see FAA Order 2150.3B at 

H-4, and the need to deter this sort of conduct in similarly situated individuals, and the deliberate 

nature of Respondent's conduct, a maximum civil penalty for Respondent's violation is 

appropriate. 
Double Jeopardy 

In his Answer, Respondent asserted that he should not be "charged twice for the same 

crime." Answer. The FAA takes this to be an affirmative defense of an assertion that the Double 

Jeopardy clause precludes this action and/or precludes the imposition of a sanction for any 

violation found in this action. Such an affirmative defense is misplaced, as the Double Jeopardy 

Clause has no application here. 

The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no "person [shall] be subject for the same 

offence to be twice put in jeopardy oflife or limb." U.S. Const. Amend. V. "The Clause protects 

only against the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense." Hudson v. 

United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99 (1997) (emphasis in original) (citing Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 

U.S. 391 (1938)). 

This proceeding is not criminal in nature. The Double Jeopardy Clause has no application 

here. It does not preclude a finding of violation, and it does not preclude or affect the imposition 

of sanction. 

CONCLUSION 

It is undisputed that Respondent knowingly aimed his laser at an aircraft, that he 

succeeded in illuminating the cockpit of the aircraft, and that this interfered with the ability of 

the pilot of the aircraft to safely operate it. Further, under these undisputed facts, and the special 

emphasis enforcement program that was implemented by the FAA, pursuant to Department of 

Transportation policy, prior to Respondent's violation, a civil penalty at the statutory maximum 

of $11,000 is appropriate. Accordingly, judgment should be entered in favor of the FAA. 
WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that the Judge grant Sununary Judgment and 

affirm the Complaint in its entirety. 

__ !\ 

Respectfully submitted tmsL day of May, 2014. 

Attorney 

CH~~N Office of the Regional Counsel 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Summary Judgment has been sent this 

date by the following methods: 

original and one copy via Federal Express: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

one copy via Federal Express: 

Tyler Pennywitt 

4483 Hanover Park Drive 

Jacksonville, FL 32224 

one copy via Federal Express: 

Honorable Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

fax: (202) 366-2131 

Dated 
FAA's REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

Responses 

1. Admit that you used a later point on the evening of June 4. 2012, at approximately 2230 local 

time. 

Response: Deny- 1 was escorted from my home in handcuffs at approximately 2 J 25 local time on 

June 4, 2012. I used the laser light in my backyard at approximately 2030 local time. 

2. Admit that you aimed the beam from that laser pointer at an aircraft. 

Response: Admit 

3. A'ilmi•• 'hat you did illuminate the cockpit of a Jacksonville Sheriffs Office helicopter. 

Response: Unknown- I was not in the helicopter cockpit. I do not know if it was illuminated. 

4. Admit that this illumination interfered with the flight crew's operation of the aircraft. 

Response: Unknown -I was not in the cockpit and l no knowledge of flight crew operations, 

therefore, I do not know if any interference oceutTed. 

5. Admit that you knowingly aimed the laser pointer at the aircraft. 

Response: Admit 

6. Admit that you pled guilty to aiming the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 39A. 

Response: Admit 

7. Admit that you were guilty of aiming the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft. in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 39A. 

Response: Admit 

8. Admit that the $11 ,000 civil penalty proposed in this case is not a criminal penalty. 

Response: Unknown -I do not understand the difference between a civil penalty and a criminal 

penalty. I do not understand howl can be charged and convicted of both. 

9. Admit that you received a two-level downward adjustment to your sentence in your criminal case 

based on your acceptance of responsibility for your criminal violation of aiming a laser pointer at an 

aircraft. 

Response: Admit 

l 0. Admit that the description of events in the Factual Basis incorporated into your plea agreement is 

accurate. 

Response: Deny- The sentence "The suspect was located. mirandized, and consented to a search of 

the house'' is inaccurate. The suspect was located. A discussion with officers about the laser light 

activity occurred. My wife and I consented to a search but my wife Jed them directly to the laser 

light. No search was required. After the laser light was located. I was mirandized and placed in 

handcuffs. Also, the Factual Basis states that the JSO helicopter was flying at 900 feet when it was 

targeted. Ot1lcer Strickland (the JSO pilot) slates that he was 2000 feet when hit by the laser light, I 

do not know which altitude is con·ect. l only know that there is a discrepancy. 

j GOVERNMENT 

~ EX!JT 

!I I 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

TYLER PEI\TNYWITT, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0716 

FAA Case No. 201280150128 

Judge Sullivan 

DECLARATION OF STEPHEN STRICKLAND 

COMES NOW the Declarant, Stephen Strickland, and states as follows: 

1. I am over the age of 18 and I understand the obligations of an oath. 

2. I serve as a police officer (#6142) in the Aviation Unit of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office 

(JSO), Duval County, Florida. I have served in the JSO for nineteen years, and in the aviation 

unit for nine years. 

3. On June 4, 2012, I was flying a JSO helicopter approximately six miles southeast of 

Craig Airport (KCRG) in Jacksonville, Duval County, I'Jorida. 

4. While being vectored for the RNAV 32 approach by JAX approach, Officer S. Vaughan 

#5941 and I were hit by a green laser. We were heading 140 at 2000 feet about 6 miles southsoutheast of Craig. The laser entered the cockpit and was extremely bright. The laser made 

reading the gauges impossible. The laser also hit the cockpit window making it difficult to 

impossible to sec outside. We broke o!I our approach with JAX and went to the area of Hodges 

and John Turner Butler Boulevard, just north of a power station. We went down to 1800 feet and 

set up an orbit of several miles around the area to maintain a safer distance as we directed ground 

units, Officers Mark Lessard #67898 and Christopher Bernard #62798, to the house that the laser 

was coming from. The suspect lased us about six or seven times in our orbits at various points in 

the orbit. Each time it made reading instruments or seeing outside the cockpit difficult to 

impossible depending on how the laser hit us. This also affected our night vision after the laser 
stopped. When ground units were in position, we descended and began a tight orbit over the 

house. 

5. We had also been lased from the same area by a green laser on the prior night around 

2230. As we worked this call, in Craig's airspace and just south of the final approach course for 

runway 32, Craig advised that about seven aircraft had complained of laser incidents in that area 

over the past week. 

6. Each time we were hit by the laser it made it very difficult to operate the aircraft. We 

were a law enforcement flight and I elected to stay in the area due to the hazard that this 

presented to other aircraft and the need to stop this hazard. 

I, Stephen Strickland, declare this .<;. Nday of May, 2014, under penalty of perjury under 

the laws of the United States that the above statements are true and correct. 

Stephen Strickland 
9046461442 JSO,.CRA!G*AIRF!ELD 

/·l"'t AppcaranN: C(m/itiJml: 

Comi~P<eJ: Cunli~u<t!; 

Arrest And Booking Report 

Jacksonville Sheriff's Office 

Jacksonville Florida 

' ADULT 

ArrestiugAgeucy.- Jacksonville Sheriff1S Office 

Day/Date/TimeArresu:d: Monday 6/4/2012 22:00 

N'"'' PENNYWITT, TYLER JOHN 

Aliases: 

Nickname(s}: 

Cumlnt<fd; 

CamirmM; 

Arresw.:'s H()meAddress: 4463 HANOVER PARK DR Api./L()rll: 

City, JACKSONVILLE S•••ooFLORIDA Zip' 32224 

Taz:653 Cros:mreet: 

00&8/4/1971 Age: 40 

Height: 5 1 9 11 !Vei~Ju (lb~); 170 

CurubrurJ: 

Comi~utd: 

Y.c2012IncN415483 

Pn!l' Juv Jail# 

Jail# 2012015606 

ISO ID #461330 

SSN 

Route To.· 

""'" WHITE£,/micio·,NOT OF HISPANIC ORIGINs." Male 

Eye Color:BROWNHQir Color: BROWN Complexion: FAIR I LIGHT Build: Medium 

ECD Usng<.- NOT APPLICABLE 

RTR wriuett related ro tliis incident? NO RTR fncidem Yr: RTR /tJcident #: 

12:12:38 06-08-2012 

L"""<1•11/~u~d: 

CowlmwJ: 

• .J.mt.md# 

6/4/2012 23:50 Fife Dirr:;;:t: YES 

Corm: Circuit 

OBTS# 1603069003 

OC deployed prior lo/dtll"ing )\rresr: NO 

fsa11 Offense a hate crime? NO Is an Offense a dali11g viofe11ce crime? NO Required tO regisreras a sexoffeudo:r? NO 

Suspec.l fnvoke Miranda? NO Arres1ee neells ADA Consideration? NO Arrestee Confessed? YES MiraudtJ Righrs Given'! YES 

Disability or Special Consideration: 

ACI.:"Ommodations Requested: 

Driw:.r's License 11 P530...S1 0~ 71 ~284-0 Stare: FLORIDA S11b]e.ct's Reside11t Type: CITY 

flm Phor~e # Bus. Phot1e II Phone Ext. 

Cell Phone# (904)·252·1356 Cell Phone Provider AT&T E·mail 

Is i'agrar~t? NO 

Subjccr'sRcsidcm::tSt(Iws.:RESIDENT Armed With: NOT APPLICABLE (NONE) 

Distinguishi11g Marks: 

Arre.sr Mo.de On: OV 

Employer: SIMONIC AND ASCO Place ofBirtii:JACK$0NVILLE DUVAL FLORIDA UNITED STATES CoumryofCirizetlship: UNITED STATES 

School Lost A trended: JACKSONVILLE UNIVERSITY us Citizen: YES 

Domestic Violence Involved: NO Cl!ildre.n wrder 18 Present: lfNo is ir Domestic Related: NO 

Day(Do.reiT/me oflncide.m"Fram: Monday 6/4/2012 19;45 

llrcidemAddress:4483 HANOVER PARK DR Apt./Lot#: 

cuy.-JACKSONVILLE s .. ,,..FLORIDA Zip: 32224 

To.~653 Cros~mreer: 

Offense Location Type:Residence~Home lnui"Viell'ed b)'-' Jmen•iewer JD: 

Where Arrested: 4483 HANOVER PARK OR Apt./Lat #: 

Ci<y.-JACKSONVILLE s""' FLORIDA Zip' 32224 

Taz:653 Crosssrreer: 

lnvo{ved in TrafficAc.cidem: NO Injuries from Acciderrr: 

Statute or Ordinance Number(s); #1 

Day/DateiTimeoflltddem-To: Monday 6/4/2012 20:59 

Sub-Sector: H1 

Sub-Secwr: H1 

Is IJJcidem O(mg Relared: NO Is Arrestee~~ Gtmg member?NO 

Sumac No: 784.062(3){A) Degree:F3 UCR Cade.·9000 Attell/pt Code: Commit 6/4/2012~23:45 

214 

MISUSE OF A LASER LIGHTING DEVICE ON A MOTOR VEHICLE, VESSEL, OR AIRCRAFT -- NO BODILY INJURY 

CilatilJIIil 

I.Jso Comrof II 

ADL T PENimvm, IYLER JOHN 

SA# Wormm Type: Not Applicable 

lflarranr/Qlse # No. ofCmmrs: 

ARREST REPORT ,,1 "'3 1""' 2012o1s6o6 ADLT 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

L 
9046461442 

JUnSOICIIOn.• 

JSO*CRAJG*A!RFIELD 

Purge/Bond Type: Bond 

DispCJsilicm: 

VOPIFTA ONLY 

BondAmoum: 

CT. LCJcarlon/Div,: 

Dare of Issue; 

Blanket Bond: 

Original Stafllte Na: Degree: UCR Code: Arrempr Code: Commit 

Descriprion: 

12:13:28 06-08-2012 3/4 

Date of Re~urn: Judge: 

DispMirion Dare: 

@J)ITIONAL INFORMATION 1 R•poni•.< Offi"" C.C.BERNARD 62798 

On 06/04/12, at 2059, Myself and Ofc. M.J.Lessard were dispatched to the area of Hodges Blvd and JTB in 

reference to assisting our Aviation unit (Air 3). Air Unit was being flown by S.G. Vaughn #5941 and S. Strickland 

#6142. 

We were advised by the Air Unit that there was a nearby subject who had shined a green laser light into their 

aircraft four times this evening, thus blinding the pilots. Air 3 further advised that he had pointed the light at 

their aircraft last evening as well on 06/03/12. We were advised that there have been numerous incidents in the 

past involving a green light shining into an aircraft In this close proximity. I spoke with a member with the FAA 

who advised that they would be able to research past events involving similar incidents in this area during 

normal business hours. I was not able to access JSO cad system due to a network crash with an unknown 

duration of down time. 

Air 3 was able to positively identify the residence in which the laser was being pointed from. We knocked and 

made contact with the suspect's wife, Debbie Pennywitt. I asked if there was a green laser inside of the house 

which she advised that her husband has a green laser light. As I was speaking with Mrs. Pennvwitt, the listed 

suspect ran across the living room, in which I later discovered he jumped in the shower. Mrs. Pennvwitt then 

invited us inside of her residence. While inside, we made contact with the listed suspect coming out of the 

shower. 

The suspect was read his Miranda Rights, by card and later advised that he understood his rights. Post 

Miranda, the suspect advised that has pointed the laser at various aircrafts over a dozen times. He advised he 

had no reason as to why he did so. He stated that he did not know the laser reached that far into the sky. When 

asked of the location of the laser pointer, he advised it was located on his bedside dresser. Ole. Lessard was 

able to retrieve the laser pointer. Ofc. Lessard then coordinated with the Air Unit and pointed the light at the 

residence's back yard. The Air Unit was able to positively identify that it was the same laser that was just 

previously pointed at them. 

The suspect was arrested and transported to the PTDF. 

The laser pointer was placed in the property room as evidence. 

Case cleared by arrest. 

TranspoNed By: C.C.BERNARD #62798 

Arres.tiug Officer(s) #l:C.C,BERNARD #62798 

Approvin~: S11pervisor: S.M.FARRIS #6748 

N2: M.J.LESSARD #67898 

Suue a[ Florida, Count>· of Duval Arres1!11g J Transporring-Offu:er's Signat!lre: ---------------

Sworn to (or affirmed) and srtbscl"ibed before me lhis __ .da}' of ____ , 20 ---...J by 

f';im.Tf~· orSramp. Comml~ion<J name of NOilltJ' i'<d>li~ 

Investigative Time: 

#1 Hours: 3 Minutes: o Cost Amount: $144.72 

Dmg ActMry: NOT APPUCABLE 

Alcohol Rd«ed: UNKNOWN (OR N/A) 

ADLT PeNNY\VIIT. m.F.RJOHN 

Dn.g Typ" NOT APPLICABLE 

Dn.g R•ta.ed: UNKNOWN (OR N/A) 

ARREST REPORT ,,, "o 1ou• wJwis6o6 ADLT 
9046461442 JSO*CRA!G'"A!RF!ELD 

~Propertv: #1 Weapon Sei2ed: 

-----'~2;:.'.:.'•:.'.::2::;5_..;:.06::·:::0:,::8::·2::;0:.:1~2:..._ ___ _;:• /4 

sram,.-SEIZEO (NOT STOLEN) 

Propen)'Type.-GREEN LASER LIGHT 

Property Taken byArre$finf{ 0/!ir:er:Evidence 

T~tmed in ar: Property Room 

Ffreo.rm Type: 

Dmg Type: 

MtWiifacrurer: 

Serial# 

Q11anti1y: 1.00 

Descrfpzion: GREEN LASER LIGHT 

WITNESS#1 

\Yeig!u: 

Ra .... .-WHITEErlmt,;ry.-NOT OF HISPANIC ORIGIN 

Se.~: Female 

DOB.-1/1/1965 Ai;e: 47 

Name.- PENNYWITT DEBBIE 

Amo1rm of Money 

Um'ro[Measure: 

Address: 4483 HANOVER PARK DR Apt./Lot II: Sub-Sector of t\rreSl Locatiou: H1 

Ciry.- JACKSONVILLE Srare FLORIDA Zip.- 32224 

Taz:653 CrosssFreet: Home Pha11e # B1ts. Phone# Plwne Ext. 

Cell Phonefl (904)~223~3572 Cell Plume Provider AT&T E-mail 

Is l'agran.l? NO 

Jailln.formation (Back Door) Date and Time Admitted: 6/4/2012 23:50 

Jail# 2012015606 l!ive11ileiCotJrt Clerk# 

Triage Questions: 

l!woived i11 IrafftcAccidenr: NO Injuries from Accidem: 

OC deployed prior to/during Arrest: NO Was a hobble resrrainr 1tsetl on1he llrres/f:ft? NO 

Does the arresree exflibi.l any slgns of suicidal behal'ior or attempts? NO Does the arrested have nny obsen•able meilical{memal health problems? NO 

Has the arrestee shown llll)' escape poremial or violence propensity behaviors? NO 

l:; there t~IIY other informarfon abo!!! the arTe.<:tee thar jajlpersormel need fa know? NO 

If yes, wlrar? 

Part II of Arrest And Booking Report: 

Arrestee Personal Information: How Long in fax? 

Verficarion B_r: -----------

Chemical Test Data 

.~pecim~"' 

"""' Orcuffl Uri"~ U•"'bl~ }lime 

f\naly~is /{J!SW~,, R~fu=l: 

,. g_J:!!O!. TIME: IJroud: 

'~ g/Z/01. 11M£: (kim:: 

,lr<f g!J.l(ll. 11M£: Er<attt: 

Bn:a1/1 T nr /n.m-tmocm: 

Tnm M~.:l>incll 

O(l(f<'IM Nnm<' Md [,1).1! DQW.' 

Right Thumb Print 

ADL T PENNYII'fiT, TYLER JOHN ARREST REPORT ,,3 "" Jail# 2012015606 ADLT 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 38 Filed 04/17/13 Page 1 of 14 PageiD 57 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FILED IN OPEN COURT 

.t-J. n ~ , s 

CLERK U.S. OiSTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE OISTfiiCT Of FLORIDA 

JACKSONVILLE. FLORIDA 

v. CASE NO. 3:12-cr-172-J-32MCR 

JOHN TYLER PENNYWITI 

PLEA AGREEMENT 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c), the United States of America, by 

Robert E. O'Neill, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, and 

the defendant, JOHN TYLER PENNYWITI, and the attorney for the defendant, 

Mitchell A. Stone, Esq., mutually agree as follows: 

A. Particularized Terms 

1. Count(s) Pleading To 

The defendant shall enter a plea of guilty to Count Two of the 

Indictment. Count d~c harges the defendant with aiming the beam of a laser 

pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States as that 

term is defined in Title 49, United States Code, section 46501, in violation of 18 

u.s.c. § 39A. 

Defendant's Initials c:TJ-P AF Approva@__ 

~GOVERNMENT 

~ ~IT 

1-::.---
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 38 Filed 04/17/13 Page 2 of 14 PageiD 58 

2. Maximum Penalties __ 

.J ' 

Count~f carries a maximum sentence of 5 years im~risonment, 

a fine of $250,000, a term of supervised release of not more than 3 years, and a 

special assessment of $100, said special assessment to be due on the date of 

sentencing. With respect to certain offenses, the Court shall order the defendant 

to make restitution to any victim of the offense(s), and with respect to other 

offenses, the Court may order the defendant to make restitution to any victim of 

the offense(s), or to the community, as set forth below. 

3. Elements of the Offense(s) 

The defendant acknowledges understanding the nature and 

elements of the offense(s) with which defendant has been charged and to which 

defendant is pleading guilty. The elements of Count ~are: 

First: 

Second: 

Third: 

The defendant aimed the beam of a laser 

pointer at an aircraft; 

The aircraft was in the special jurisdiction of the 

United States, and 

The defendant aimed the beam knowingly. 

4. Counts Dismissed 

c." At the time of sentencing, the remaining count against the 

tit\'" 

defendant, Count iwe, will be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Grim. P. 

Mj/M 

11 (c)(1)(A). 

Defendant's Initials cfj)f 2 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 38 Filed 04/17/13 Page 3 of 14 PageiD 59 

5. No Further Charges 

If the Court accepts this plea agreement, the United States 

Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida agrees not to charge defendant 

with committing any other federal criminal offenses known to the United States 

Attorney's Office at the time of the execution of this agreement, or related to the 

conduct giving rise to this plea agreement. 

6. Guidelines Sentence 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(8), the United States will 

recommend to the Court that the defendant be sentenced within the defendant's 

applicable guidelines range as determined by the Court pursuant to the United 

States Sentencing Guidelines, as adjusted by any departure the United States 

has agreed to recommend in this plea agreement. The United States would also 

recommend that USSG §2A5.2(a)(4) applies and the base offense level should 

begin at a level 9. The parties understand that such a recommendation is not 

binding on the Court and that, if it is not accepted by this Court, neither the 

United States nor the defendant will be allowed to withdraw from the plea 

agreement, and the defendant will not be allowed to withdraw from the plea of 

guilty. 

7. Acceptance of Responsibility- Two Levels 

At the time of sentencing, and in the event that no adverse 

information is received suggesting such a recommendation to be unwarranted, 

Defendant's Initials c( 61 3 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 38 Filed 04/17/13 Page 4 of 14 PageiD 60 

the United States will to the Court that the defendant receive a two-level 

downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to USSG 

§3E1.1(a). The defendant understands that this recommendation or request is 

not binding on the Court, and if not accepted by the Court, the defendant will not 

be allowed to withdraw from the plea. 

8. Use of Information- Section 181.8 

Pursuant to USSG § 1 B 1.8(a), the United States agrees that no 

self-incriminating information which the defendant may provide during the course 

of defendant's cooperation and pursuant to this agreement shall be used in 

determining the applicable sentencing guideline range, subject to the restrictions 

and limitations set forth in USSG §1B1.8(b). 

B. Standard Terms and Conditions 

1. Restitution, Special Assessment and Fine 

The defendant understands and agrees that the Court, in addition 

to or in lieu of any other penalty, shall order the defendant to make restitution to 

any victim of the offense(s), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, for all offenses 

described in 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1) (limited to offenses committed on or after 

April 24, 1996); and the Court may order the defendant to make restitution to any 

victim of the offense(s), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663 (limited to offenses 

committed on or after November 1, 1987), including restitution as to all counts 

charged, whether or not the defendant enters a plea of guilty to such counts, and 

Defendant's Initials ~ 4 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 38 Filed 04/17113 Page 5 of 14 PageiD 61 

whether or not such counts are dismissed pursuant to this agreement. The 

defendant further understands that compliance with any restitution payment plan 

imposed by the Court in no way precludes the United States from simultaneously 

pursuing other statutory remedies for collecting restitution (18 U.S.C. § 

3003(b)(2)), including, but not limited to, garnishment and execution, pursuant to 

the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, in order to ensure that the defendant's 

restitution obligation is satisfied. 

On each count to which a plea of guilty is entered, the Court shall impose 

a special assessment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013. To ensure that this 

obligation is satisfied, the Defendant agrees to deliver a check or money order to 

the Clerk of the Court in the amount of$, payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court" 

within ten days of the change of plea hearing. 

The defendant understands that this agreement imposes no limitation as 

to fine. 

2. Supervised Release 

The defendant understands that the offense(s) to which the 

defendant is pleading provide(s) for imposition of a term of supervised release 

upon release from imprisonment, and that, if the defendant should violate the 

conditions of release, the defendant would be subject to a further term of 

imprisonment. 

Defendant's Initials~ 5 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 38 Filed 04/17/13 Page 6 of 14 PageiD 62 

3. Sentencing Information 

The United States reserves its right and obligation to report to the 

Court and the United States Probation Office all information concerning the 

background, character, and conduct of the defendant, to provide relevant factual 

information, including the totality of the defendant's criminal activities, if any, not 

limited to the count(s) to which defendant pleads, to respond to comments made 

by the defendant or defendant's counsel, and to correct any misstatements or 

inaccuracies. The United States further reserves its right to make any 

recommendations it deems appropriate regarding the disposition of this case, 

subject to any limitations set forth herein, if any. 

4. Financial Disclosures 

Pursuant to 18 U.S. C.§ 3664(d)(3) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 

32(d)(2)(A)(ii), the defendant agrees to complete and submit to the United States 

Attorney's Office within 30 days of execution of this agreement an affidavit 

reflecting the defendant's financial condition. The defendant promises that 

his/her financial statement and disclosures will be complete, accurate and 

truthful and will include all assets in which he/she has any interest or over which 

the defendant exercises control, directly or indirectly, including those held by a 

spouse, dependent, nominee or other third party. The defendant further agrees 

to execute any documents requested by the United States needed to obtain from 

any third parties any records of assets owned by the defendant, directly or 

Defendant's Initials~ 6 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 38 Filed 04/17/13 Page 7 of 14 Page!D 63 

through a nominee, and, by the execution of this Plea Agreement, consents to 

the release of the defendant's tax returns for the previous five years. The 

defendant similarly agrees and authorizes the United States Attorney's Office to 

provide to, and obtain from, the United States Probation Office, the financial 

affidavit, any of the defendant's federal, state, and local tax returns, bank records 

and any other financial information concerning the defendant, for the purpose of 

making any recommendations to the Court and for collecting any assessments, 

fines, restitution, or forfeiture ordered by the Court. The defendant expressly 

authorizes the United States Attorney's Office to obtain current credit reports in 

order to evaluate the defendant's ability to satisfy any financial obligation 

imposed by the Court. 

5. Sentencing Recommendations 

It is understood by the parties that the Court is neither a party to 

nor bound by this agreement. The Court may accept or reject the agreement, or 

defer a decision until it has had an opportunity to consider the presentence 

report prepared by the United States Probation Office. The defendant 

understands and acknowledges that, although the parties are permitted to make 

recommendations and present arguments to the Court, the sentence will be 

determined solely by the Court, with the assistance of the United States 

Probation Office. Defendant further understands and acknowledges that any 

discussions between defendant or defendant's attorney and the attorney or other 

Defendant's Initials cf()(J 7 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 38 Filed 04/17/13 Page 8 of 14 PageiD 64 

agents for the government regarding any recommendations by the government 

are not binding on the Court and that, should any recommendations be rejected, 

defendant will not be permitted to withdraw defendant's plea pursuant to this plea 

agreement. The government expressly reserves the right to support and defend 

any decision that the Court may make with regard to the defendant's sentence, 

whether or not such decision is consistent with the government's 

recommendations contained herein. 

6. Defendant's Waiver of Right to Appeal the Sentence 

The defendant agrees that this Court has jurisdiction and authority 

to impose any sentence up to the statutory maximum and expressly waives the 

right to appeal defendant's sentence on any ground, including the ground that 

the Court erred in determining the applicable guidelines range pursuant to the 

United States Sentencing Guidelines, except (a) the ground that the sentence 

exceeds the defendant's applicable guidelines range as determined by the Court 

pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines; (b) the ground that the 

sentence exceeds the statutory maximum penalty; or (c) the ground that the 

sentence violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution; provided, however, 

that if the government exercises its right to appeal the sentence imposed, as 

authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b), then the defendant is released from his 

waiver and may appeal the sentence as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). 

Defendant's Initials qj}f__ 8 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 38 Filed 04/17/13 Page 9 of 14 PageiD 65 

7. Middle District of Florida Agreement 

It is further understood that this agreement is limited to the Office of 

the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida and cannot bind other 

federal, state, or local prosecuting authorities, although this office will bring 

defendant's cooperation, if any, to the attention of other prosecuting officers or 

others, if requested. 

8. Filing of Agreement 

This agreement shall be presented to the Court, in open court or in 

camera, in whole or in part, upon a showing of good cause, and filed in this 

cause, at the time of defendant's entry of a plea of guilty pursuant hereto. 

9. Voluntariness 

The defendant acknowledges that defendant is entering into this 

agreement and is pleading guilty freely and voluntarily without reliance upon any 

discussions between the attorney for the government and the defendant and 

defendant's attorney and without promise of benefit of any kind {other than the 

concessions contained herein), and without threats, force, intimidation, or 

coercion of any kind. The defendant further acknowledges defendant's 

understanding of the nature of the offense or offenses to which defendant is 

pleading guilty and the elements thereof, including the penalties provided by law, 

and defendant's complete satisfaction with the representation and advice 

received from defendant's undersigned counsel {if any). The defendant also 

Defendant's Initials CZ/)L_ 9 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 38 Filed 04/17113 Page 10 of 14 PageiD 66 

understands that defendant has the right to plead not guilty or to persist in that 

plea if it has already been made, and that defendant has the right to be tried by a 

jury with the assistance of counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine the 

witnesses against defendant, the right against compulsory self-incrimination, and 

the right to compulsory process for the attendance of witnesses to testify in 

defendant's defense; but, by pleading guilty, defendant waives or gives up those 

rights and there will be no trial. The defendant further understands that if 

defendant pleads guilty, the Court may ask defendant questions about the 

offense or offenses to which defendant pleaded, and if defendant answers those 

questions under oath, on the record, and in the presence of counsel (if any), 

defendant's answers may later be used against defendant in a prosecution for 

perjury or false statement. The defendant also understands that defendant will 

be adjudicated guilty of the offenses to which defendant has pleaded and, if any 

of such offenses are felonies, may thereby be deprived of certain rights, such as 

the right to vote, to hold public office, to serve on a jury, or to have possession of 

firearms. 

10. Factual Basis 

Defendant is pleading guilty because defendant is in fact guilty. 

The defendant certifies that defendant does hereby admit that the facts set forth 

in the attached "Factual Basis," which is incorporated herein by reference, are 

Defendant's Initials !!}}P__ 10 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 38 Filed 04/17/13 Page 11 of 14 PageiD 67 

true, and were this case to go to trial, the United States would be able to prove 

those specific facts and others beyond a reasonable doubt. 

11. Entire Agreement 

This plea agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the 

government and the defendant with respect to the aforementioned guilty plea 

and no other promises, agreements, or representations exist or have been made 

to the defendant or defendant's attorney with regard to such guilty plea. 

12. Certification 

The defendant and defendant's counsel certify that this plea 

agreement has been read in its entirety by (or has been read to) the defendant 

and that defendant fully understands its terms. 

DATED this I 7 day of April, 2013. 

ROBERT E. O'NEILL 

Unite 

J OR 

Defendant 

Attorney for Defendant 

Defendant's Initials !:!/Jt__ 11 

ssistant United States Attorney 

M . HEAVENER, Ill 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Deputy Chief, Jacksonville Division 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 38 Filed 04/17/13 Page 12 of 14 PageiD 68 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. Case No. 3:12-cr-172-J-32MCR 

JOHN TYLER PENNYWITT 

:i' off PERSONALIZATION OF ELEMENTS 

~ 't 

1. On or about June~ 2012, in the Middle District of Florida, did you aim 

the beam of a laser pointer at a helicopter owned and operated by the 

Jacksonville Sheriffs Office? 

2. Was the helicopter within the special jurisdiction, that is, the air space, 

of the United States? 

3. Did you aim the beam knowingly? 

Defendant's Initials cJ[TP 12 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document38 Filed 04/17/13 Page 13 of 14 PageiD 69 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. Case No. 3:12-cr-172-J-32MCR 

JOHN TYLER PENNYWITT 

FACTUAL BASIS 

On June 4, 2012, a helicopter flown by the Jacksonville Sheriffs Office 

(JSO) was targeted by a green laser on four separate occasions during nighttime 

hours. The laser originated from the backyard of a residential house located in 

the Southside area of Jacksonville. 

The pilots were able to guide JSO patrol units to the house from where 

the laser originated. Patrol officers knocked on the door and were permitted 

entry into the house by the suspect's wife. When asked if there was a green 

laser in the house, Debbie Pennywitt told the officers that her husband had one. 

The suspect was located, mirandized, and consented to a search of the house. 

He admitted that he had a laser that he kept in the bedroom and that he had 

pointed it at the JSO helicopter. He claimed that he didn't realize that it reached 

so far into the sky (the JSO helicopter was flying at 900 feet when it was 

targeted). 

Defendant's Initials~ 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 38 Filed 04/17/13 Page 14 of 14 PageiD 70 

The officers took the laser into the suspect's back yard and, in 

coordination with air units, positively identified the house where the suspect lived 

as the house from where the laser originated June 4, 2012. At the time of the 

incidents, the aircraft was flying in airspace within the special jurisdiction of the 

United States. 

Defendant's Initials :!!lt..._ 2 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 39 Filed 04/19/13 Page 1 of 1 PageiD 71 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

vs. CASE NO. 3:12-cr-172-J-32MCR 

JOHN TYLER PENNYWITT 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION' 

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUlL TY 

The defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. R. 

Crim. P. and Rule 6.01 (c)(12), M. D. Fla. Rules, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 

Two of the Indictment. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath 

concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea 

was knowledgeable and voluntary, and that the offense charged is supported by an 

independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. 

therefore recommend that the plea of guilty be accepted and that the defendant be 

adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed accordingly. 

DONE AND ENTERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 17th day of April, 2013. 

·~NTE C~;JCHARDSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Copies to: 

Honorable Timothy J. Corrigan 

United States District Judge 

Marielena Diaz, Courtroom Deputy 

Assistant United States Attorney (Campion) 

Mitchell Stone, Esq. 

United States Probation 

United States Pretrial Services GOVERNMENT· 

EXHIBIT 

C-- 1

The parties have agreed to waive the fourteen (14) day objection period to this ~~~1'1"" ..... -11111 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Rule 6.02, M.D. Fla. Rules. 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 41 Filed 08/01/13 Page 1 of 1 PageiD 74 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE N0.3:12-cr-172-J-32MCR 

v~ J \ N TYLER PENNYWITT a/ka TYLER JOHN PENNYWITT 

Counsel for Government: \ Counsel for Defendant: 

Jay Carl Taylor Mitchell A. Stone 

HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Courtroom Deputy: Marielena Diaz U.S. Probation: Irish Anderson 

Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop 

CLERK'S MINUTES 

PROCEEDINGS OF SENTENCING: 

United States' witnesses: -------------------------

Defendant's witnesses: ·=;::-,===--------------------- United Stales' exhibits filed In evidence: ____________________ _ 

Defendant's exhibits filed in evidence: --------------------- _X_ Plea previously accepted. 

_x_ Defendant adjudged guilty on Count Two f2! of the Indictment 

Imprisonment: -,,---;,----.-.,--

Court recommends confinement at: ===::--

Defendant receive substance abuse treatment. 

Court recommends to the BOP that defendant receive mental health treatment. 

__ Supervised Release:=-=-----

_x_ Probation: ONE !1! YEAR 

_X_ Special Assessment: $100.00 to be paid immediately. 

Restitution; 

X Special conditions of supervised release/probation:=====:-::==========--- Defendant shalt provide the Probation Officer access to any requested financial information. 

Defendant shall be prohibited from incurring new credit charges, opening additional lines of credit, or 

obligating himself/herself for any major purchases without approval of the Probation Officer. 

_X_ Defendant shall be evaluated to determine whether he requires mental health treatment and, W so, the 

defendant shall participate as directed In a program of mental health treatment. 

_X_ Defendant shall participate in a program for substance abuse treatment. 

Defendant shall participate in the Home Detention program for a period of -:-:--:-:--::: 

_X_ Defendant shall perform FIFTY (50) hours of community service as directed by the Probation Officer. 

If deported by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE), the Defendant shall not 

re-enter the United States unless allowed to do so legally. 

Mandatory drug testing suspended. Defendant poses a low risk. 

X Defendant shall cooperate in the collection of DNA as directed by the probation officer. 

_X_ Count One !1! is dismissed on motion of Assistant U.S. Attorney or pursuant to Plea Agreement. 

Defendant is remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal. 

Defendant shall surrender to the designated institution as notified by the U.S. Marshal. 

_X_ Defendant advised of right to appeal and to counsel on appeal. 

Other: 

DATE: August 1, 2013 TIME: 10:04 a.m. - 10:27 a.m. 

ij GOVERNMENT I EX~IT 

; t: 

" 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 42 Filed 08/08/13 Page 1 of 5 PageiD 75 

AO 245B { RHV 06:05) Sheet 1 • Judgrneht in a Criminal C~se 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLOR)DA 

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION' 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

V. 

JOHN TYLER PENNYWITT a/k/a 

TYLER JOHN PENNYWITT 

THE DEFENDANT: 

_X pleaded guilty to count Two (2) of the Indictment 

_pleaded nolo contendere to count(s) which was accepted by the court 

_was found guilty on count(s) after a plea of not guilty. 

The defendant is adjudicated guilty of these offenses: 

TITLE & SECTION 

18 U.S.C. § 39A 

NATURE OF OFFENSE 

Aiming the Beam of a Laser Pointer 

at an Aircraft of the Special Aircraft 

Jurisdiction of the United States 

JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE 

CASE NUMBER: 3:12-cr-172-J-32MCR 

USM NUMBER: 57526-018 

Defendant's Attorney: Mitchell A Stone 

OFFENSE ENDED COUNT 

June 4, 2012 Two of the Indictment 

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 5 of this judgment The sentence is imposed pursuant 

to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, as modified by United States v. Booker and 18 U.S. C.§§ 3551 and 3553. 

_The defendant has been found not guilty on count(s) 

X. Count One (1 i of the Indictment is dismissed on the motion of the United States. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this district within 30 days of any 

change of name, residence. or mailing address until all fines. restitution, costs. and special assessments imposed by this 

judgment are fully paid. If ordered to pay restitution. the defendant shall notify the court and Un1ted States Attorney of any 

material change in economic circumstances. 

Date of Imposition of Sentence: August 1, 2013 

DATE: August--+-· 2013 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 42 Filed 08/08/13 Page 2 of 5 PageiD 76 

AO 2456 (Rev. 06/05) Sheet 4 - Probation 

Defendant 

Case No.: 

JOHN TYLER PENNYWITT a/ka TYLER JOHN PENNYWITT 

3: 12-cr-172-J-32MCR 

Judgment- Page __£_ of..§.._ 

PROBATION 

The defendant is hereby placed on probation for a term of ONE (1) YEAR. 

The defendant shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime. 

The defendant shall not unlawfully possess a controlled substance. The defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a 

controlled substance. The defendant shall submit to one drug test within 15 days of placement on probation and at least two 

periodic drug tests thereafter, as determined by the court. 

The above drug testing condition is suspended, based on the court's determination that the defendant poses a low 

risk of future substance abuse. (Check, if applicable.) 

X The defendant shall not possess a firearm, ammunition, destructive device, or any other dangerous weapon. (Check, 

if applicable.) 

X. The defendant shall cooperate in the collection of DNA as directed by the probation officer. (Check, if applicable.) 

The defendant shall register with the state sex offender registration agency in the state where the defendant resides, 

works, or is a student, as directed by the probation officer. (Check, if applicable.) 

1) 

2) 

3) 

4) 

5) 

6) 

7) 

8) 

9) 

10) 

11) 

12) 

13) 

The defendant shall participate in an approved program for domestic violence. (Check, if applicable.) 

If this judgment imposes a fine or a restitution, it is a condition of probation that the defendant pay in accordance with 

the Schedule of Payments sheet of this judgment. 

The defendant shall comply with the standard conditions that have been adopted by this court as well as with any 

additional conditions on the attached page. 

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION 

the defendant shall not leave the judicial district without the permission of the court or probation officer; 

the defendant shall report to the probation officer and shall submit a truthful and complete written report in the manner 

and frequency directed by the Court or probation officer; 

the defendant shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and follow the instruction of the probation 

officer; 

the defendant shall support his or her dependents and meet other family responsibilities; 

the defendant shall work regularly at a lawful occupation, unless excused by the probation officer for schooling, 

training, or other acceptable reasons; 

the defendant shall notify the probation officer at least ten days prior to any change in residence or employment; 

the defendant shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol and shall not purchase, possess, use, distribute, or 

administer any controlled substance, or any paraphernalia related to any controlled substances, except as prescribed 

by a physician; 

the defendant shall not frequent places where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or 

administered; 

the defendant shall not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity, and shall not associate with any person 

convicted of a felony, unless granted permission to do so by the probation officer; 

the defendant shall permit a probation officer to visit him or her at any time at home or elsewhere and shall permit 

confiscation of any contraband observed in plain view of the probation officer; 

the defendant shall notify the probation officer within seventy-two hours of being arrested or questioned by a law 

enforcement officer; 

the defendant shall not enter into any agreement to act as an informer or a special agent of a law enforcement agency 

without the permission of the court; and 

as directed by the probation officer, the defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by the 

defendant's criminal record or personal history or ~haracterjstics, and ~hall permit the probation officer to make such 

notifications and to confirm the defendanrs compliance with such notification requirement. 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 42 Filed 08/08/13 Page 3 of 5 PageiD 77 

AO 2458 (Rev 06/05) Sheet 4C - Probation 

8elen~an!: jO~N I X};!§Rf-Wil t alka I YLER JoHN PENNVWII I 

ase o.: :1 -cr-1 -J- Judgment- Page 3 of 5 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION 

The defendant shall also comply with the following additional conditions of probation: 

The defendant shall participate in the Home Detention program for a period of_. During this time, defendant will 

remain at defendant's place of residence except for employment and other activities approved in advance by the 

defendant's Probation Officer. Defendant will be subject to the standard conditions of Home Detention adopted for 

use In the Middle District of Florida, which may include the requirement to wear an electronic monitoring device and 

to follow electronic monitoring procedures specified by the Probation Officer. Further, the defendant shall be required 

to contribute to the costs of services for such monitoring not to exceed an amount determined reasonable by the 

Probation Officer based on ability to pay (or availability ofthird party payment) and in conformance with the Probation 

Office's Sliding Scale for Electronic Monitoring Services. 

JS The defendant shall participate, as directed by the Probation Officer, in a program (outpatient and/or inpatient) for 

treatment of narcotic addiction or drug or alcohol dependency. This program will include testing for the detection of 

substance use or abuse. Further, the defendant shall be required to contribute to the costs of services for such 

treatment not to exceed an amount determined reasonable by the Probation Officer's Sliding Scale for Substance 

Abuse Treatment Services. 

X The defendant shall be evaluated to determine whether he requires mental health treatment and, if so, the defendant 

shall participate as directed in a program of mental health treatment approved by the Probation Officer. Further, the 

defendant shall be required to contribute to the costs of services for such treatment not to exceed an amount 

determined reasonable to by Probation Officer based on ability to pay or availability of third party payment and in 

conformance with the Probation Office's Sliding Scale for Mental Health Treatment Services. 

The defendant shall provide the probation officer access to any requested financial information. 

The defendant shall be prohibited from incurring new credit charges, opening additional lines of credit, acquisitions 

or obligating himself/herself for any major purchases without approval of the probation officer. 

Should the defendant be deported, he/she shall not be allowed to re-enter the United States without the express 

permission of the United States Attorney General. 

.X. Defendant shall perform FIFTY 150\ HOURS hours of community service. 

The defendant shall register with the state sexual offender registration agency(s) in any state where he resides, visits, 

is employed, carries on a vacation, or is a student, as directed by the probation officer. 

The defendant shall have no direct contact with minors (under the age of 18) without the written approval of the 

probation officer and shall refrain from entering into any area where children frequently congregate including: 

schools, day-care centers, theme parks, playgrounds, etc. 

The defendant is prohibited from possessing, subscribing to, or viewing any video, magazines, or literature depicting 

children in the nude and/or in sexually explicit positions. 

The defendant shall submit to a search of his/her person, residence, place of business, any storage units under 

his/her control, or vehicle conducted by the probation officer at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, based 

upon reasonable suspicion of contraband or evidence of a violation of a condition of release; failure to submit to a 

search may be grounds for revocation; defendant shall inform any other residents that the premises may be subject 

to a search pursuant to this condition. 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 42 Filed 08/08/13 Page 4 of 5 PageiD 78 

AO 2458 (Rev 06/05) Sheet 5 - Criminal Monetary Penalties 

Defendant: JOHN TYLER PENNYWITT atka TYLER JOHN PENNYWITT 

Case No.: 3:12-cr-172-J-32MCR Judgment- Page~ of_§_ 

CRIMINAL MONETARY PENAL TIES 

The defendant must pay the total criminal monetary penalties under the schedule of payments on Sheet 6. 

Assessment Total Restitution 

Totals: $100.00 

The determination of restitution is deferred until __ . be entered after such determination. 

An Amended Judgment in a Criminal Case (AO 245C) will 

The defendant must make restitution (including community restitution) to the following payees in the amount listed 

below. 

If the defendant makes a partial payment, each payee shall receive an approximately proportioned rayment, unless 

specified otherwise in the priority order or percentage payment column below. However, pursuan to 18 U.S.C. § 

3664(1), all nonfederal vict1ms must be paid before the United States is paid. 

Name of Payee 

"Total 

Amount of Loss 

Amount of 

Restitution Ordered 

Restitution amount ordered pursuant to plea agreement $ ------· 

Priority Order or 

Percentage of 

Payment 

Jhe defendant shall pay interest on any fine or restitution of more than $2,500, unless the restitution or fine is paid 10 

full before the fifteenth day after the date of the judgment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3612(1). All of the payment options 

on page 6 may be subject to penalties for delinquency and default, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3612(g). 

The court determined that the defendant does not have the ability to pay interest and it is ordered that: 

the interest requirement is waived for the_ fine _ restitution. 

the interest requirement for the _ fine _ restitution is modified as follows: 

• Findings for the total amount of losses are required under Chapters 109A, 110, 110A, and 113A of Title 18 for the offenses 

committed on or after September 13, 1994, but before Apri123, 1996. 
Case 3:12-cr-00172-TJC-MCR Document 42 Filed 08/08/13 Page 5 of 5 PageiD 79 

AO 2456 (Rev 06/05) Sheets- Schedule of Payments 

Judgment - Page 5 of .i.. 

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS 

Having assessed the defendant's ability to pay, payment of the total criminal monetary penalties are due as follows: 

A. _lL Lump sum special assessment payment of $ 100.00 due immediately. 

not later than , or 

_in accordance _ C, _ D, _ E or _ F below; or 

B. Payment to begin immediately (may be combined with _ C, _ D, or_ F below); or 

C. Payment in equal (e.g., weekly, monthly, quarterly) installments of$ over a 

D. 

E. 

F. 

period of __ (e.g., months or years), to commence days (e.g., 30 or 60 days) after the date 

of this judgment or 

Payment in equal (e.g., weekly, monthly, quarterly) installments of$ over a period 

of , (e.g., months or years) to commence (e.g. 30 or 60 days) after release 

from imprisonment to a term of supervision; or 

!;'8Wl~sl'\t ~H~r~Pelbi~tgWb~ iW/11~;"~&.deh1 e~~~ -gg u'ft ~1ri.Acffir~~~rnent plan based on ~'ii%s~gs~::nent of 

IRe astenaant s 8buny !o' pay ar that t1me, or 

Special instructions regarding the payment of criminal monetary penalties: 

The .defendapt is ordered to be~·n makinl\\.oav.me~~of S per month aod.this P.evment schedule shall conttnue unt1 suco 11me as tile rt IS n me,a ov. etdelenaant, the v1ct1m or trre government that there has oeen a matena change 1n e deten ants a011 o pay. 

Unless the court has expressly ordered otherwise, if this judgment imposes a period of imprisonment, payment of criminal 

monetary penalties is due during imprisonment. All criminal monetary penalties, except those payments made through 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, are made to the clerk of the court. 

The defendant shall receive credit for all payments previously made toward any criminal monetary penalties imposed. 

Joint and Several 

Defendant and Co-Defendant N<~mes and Case Numbers (including defendant number), Total Amount, Joint and Several Amount, and correspondmg payee, if appropnate: 

The defendant shall pay the cost of prosecution. 

The defendant shall pay the following court cost(s): 

The defendant shall forfeit the defendant's interest in the following property to the United States: 

Pavments shall be aooliedjn the follol(lino order. 1.11 assestsment.J2l)restittution1 pdtincipa~ 131 restitution interest, 141 fine pnnc1pa1, {5) fine Interest{ c) communny restitUtion, 1 () pena111es, an {B cos s, Inc u mg to~tofprosecutlon ano court costs. 
05/01/12 2150.38, Chg 4 

Appendix H 

Compliance and Enforcement Bnlletin No. 2012-1 

SUBJECT: Sanctions for persons who direct a laser toward an aircraft in violation of 14 C.F.R. 

§§ 91.11, 121.580, 125.328, or 135.120. 

DISCUSSION: Data recently compiled by the FAA reflects a continuing upward trend in the 

number of reported incidents of lasers being aimed at aircraft. Aiming a laser at an aircraft can 

seriously impair a pilot's vision and interfere with the flight crew's ability to safely handle its 

responsibilities. Flight crewmembers exposed to laser light, while operating an aircraft at night, 

have experienced glare (a temporary disruption in vision caused by the presence of a bright light 

within an individual's field of vision), flashblindness (the inability to see, caused by bright light 

entering the eye that persists after the illumination has ceased), and afterimage (an image that 

remains in the visual field after an exposure to bright light). A sufficiently powerful laser could 

cause permanent ocular damage, blinding crewmembers and making a successful landing 

virtually impossible. 

On June 1, 2011, the FAA's Assistant ChiefCounse1 for Regulations issued a memorandum 

interpreting 14 C.F.R. § 91.11 as being applicable to a person, not on board the aircraft, who 

aims a laser beam at that aircraft. The memorandum noted that the interpretation applied equally 

to the similarly worded provisions of 14 C.F.R. §§ 121.580, 125.328, and 135.120. 

Subsequently, this interpretation was published in the Federal Register to increase public 

awareness that: ( 1) directing laser beams towards aircraft operating on the ground or in the air so 

that it interferes with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties is a 

violation of section 91.11; and (2) persons violating section 91.11 are subject to a civil penalty. 

See 76 Fed. Reg. 76611-76612 (Dec. 8, 2011). Minors found in violation of section 91.11 under 

this interpretation are subject to enforcement action and sanction. 

Because of the continuing high number oflaser-related flight crewmember interference 

occurrences and the high risk to safety they present, the FAA's Acting Administrator has 

determined that a special emphasis enforcement program is warranted for violations of 14 

C.F.R. §§ 91.11, 121.580, 125.328, and 135.120 resulting from such occurrences. 

ACTION: Until further notice, the following special emphasis enforcement program is in effect 

for violations of 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.11, 121.580, 125.328, or 135.120 committed by an individual 

when he or she aims a laser beam at an aircraft: 

I. Informal action (oral or written counseling) and administrative action (warning notices or 

letters of correction) are not used to address such violations. 

2. A single, first-time, inadvertent or non-deliberate violation by an individual generally 

warrants a civil penalty in the moderate range ($2,200-$4,399). 1 

1 An individual who holds an airman certificate should appreciate the potential for danger 

associated with directing a laser at the crew operating an aircraft. Accordingly, a violator's 

status as an airman is an aggravating factor that may warrant a civil penalty above the moderate 

range for a single, first-time, inadvertent or non-deliberate violation. 

H-4 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

ti 
05/01/12 2150.38, Chg 4 

Appendix H 

3. For a deliberate violation by an individual not holding an airman certificate, the FAA 

may seek a civil penalty up to the statutory maximum of $11,000 per violation under 49 

U.S.C. § 4630l(a)(5)(A). 

4. For a deliberate violation by an airman certificate holder, regardless of whether the 

airman was exercising the privileges of his or her certificate at the time of the violation, 

the appropriate sanction generally is revocation of the airman certificate. A civil penalty 

in the maximum range may be appropriate in addition to certificate revocation. 

5. The FAA's Regional Counsel Offices will coordinate with FAA's Office of Chief 

Counsel, Enforcement Division, in initiating and processing these legal enforcement 

actions. 

H-5 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Chapter 7. Sanction Guidance Policies 

1. Purpose. This chapter provides the FAA's policies for determining an appropriate sanction 

once FAA enforcement personnel decide that legal enforcement action is appropriate. This chapter 

contains the general policy the FAA intends to apply in selecting the types of sanctions, ranges of 

sanctions within those types, and specific sanction amounts to impose in legal enforcement actions 

for typical violations of the FAA's statute and regulations. This guidance covers the parameters 

both for selecting sanctions and for modifying sanctions during the informal procedures. The 

guidance in this chapter is applied in adjudications under 49 U.S.C. §§ 44106,44709,44710, 

44726,44924,46111,46301, and 70115. Hazardous materials sanction guidance and policies are 

addressed in Appendix C. 

2. General Guidelines. 

a. Certificate Suspension Action and Civil Penalty Action: Sanctions for Punitive and 

Deterrent Purposes. 

(I) General. If a certificate holder improperly exercises the privileges of a certificate, a 

natural consequence of that act is to lose the privileges for a period oftime commensurate with 

the violation. Balanced against this principle, however, the FAA considers the adverse impact 

that a certificate suspension could have on the public. Thus, the agency generally suspends the 

certificates of individual certificate holders for violations. However, the FAA usually takes civil 

penalty action against air carriers and airports because such actions do not disrupt service, which 

may adversely affect the public. Nevertheless, when the FAA determines that safety 

considerations warrant it, the agency will suspend the certificate of any type of certificate holder. 

In no case will the FAA take civil penalty action alone when remedial legal action is necessary 

or appropriate. 

(2) Use of both punitive certificate action and civil penalty action for the same 

violations. The FAA generally does not take civil penalty action and punitive certificate action 

(that is, certificate suspension for a fixed period of time) against a certificate holder for the same 

conduct. If unusual circumstances warrant deviation from this practice, legal counsel consult 

with the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement (AGC-300) before initiating the actions. 

(3) Change in type of proposed sanction. The initial enforcement action reflects the 

agency's best assessment of the appropriate sanction for the violations alleged. After initiating 

the action, legal counsel ordinarily does not change the type of sanction unless additional facts or 

circumstances are presented to the FAA that warrant a change. If the action was coordinated 

under chapter 6, paragraph 3, with AGC-300 before initiation, then legal counsel coordinates any 

change in the type of sanction with AGC-300 before making the change. 

b. Legal Sanctions for Remedial Purposes. 

(I) Indefinite certificate suspension pending compliance or demonstration of 

qualification. Suspension action is appropriate where there is a need temporarily to 

7-1 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

l 
10/01/07 2150.38 

suspend the privileges of the certificate or rating pending demonstration of qualification or 

compliance with statutory or regulatory requirements. FAA generally uses remedial suspension 

when an individual does not voluntarily surrender his or her certificate pending reexamination. 

See chapter 5. 

(2) Certificate revocation - general. The FAA revokes a certificate when a certificate 

holder lacks the qualifications to hold the certificate. The certificate holder's continued exercise 

of the privileges of the certificate in such circumstances would be contrary to safety in air 

commerce or air transportation and the public interest. Revocation is appropriate whenever a 

certificate holder's conduct demonstrates a lack of the technical proficiency or a lack of the 

degree of care, judgment, or responsibility, required of the holder of such a certificate. Orders of 

revocation are issued on an emergency basis when the certificate holder lacks qualification and is 

reasonably able as a practical matter to exercise the privileges of the certificate. Legal counsel 

does not allege a lack of qualifications to avoid dismissal of charges under 49 C.P.R. § 821.33, 

the NTSB 's stale complaint rule. 

(3) Certificate revocation- individuals. The FAA generally revokes an individual's 

certificate or rating whenever he or she demonstrates a lack of willingness or ability to comply 

consistently with statutory or regulatory requirements. A lack of willingness or ability to comply 

may be demonstrated by such things as repeated or deliberate violations or by violations that 

involve grossly careless or reckless conduct. Even a single violation may be sufficient to warrant 

a conclusion an individual lacks qualifications. The FAA ordinarily revokes all certificates of a 

person who commits a violation involving intentional falsification. 

( 4) Certificate revocation - entities. Revocation is normally appropriate when a 

certificate-holding entity deliberately or flagrantly violates the statute or regulations or falsifies 

records. Revocation also is generally appropriate when the certificate holder has committed the 

same or similar violations in the recent past demonstrating a lack of qualification, or when the 

certificate holder no longer has, and does not obtain in a reasonable time, the personnel or 

equipment to conduct its operation in full compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. 

(5) Mandatory certificate revocation. Under 49 U.S.C. § 44710, the FAA is required to 

revoke the certificates of any airman who has been convicted of violating certain federal or state 

statutes relating to a controlled substance when an airplane was used in the commission of the 

offense and the airman served as an airman, or was aboard the aircraft, in connection with 

commission of the offense or the facilitation of the commission of the offense. Even when there 

has been no conviction, revocation is required when an airman has knowingly carried out an 

activity punishable under these criminal statutes. The Administrator may waive the revocation if 

a law enforcement officer requests the waiver and the Administrator decides the waiver will 

facilitate law enforcement purposes. See 49 U.S.C. § 44710(f). Under 49 U.S.C. § 44106, the 

FAA also must revoke the registration certificate of any airplane used in the commission of such 

an offense when the use was permitted by the owner of the aircraft with knowledge that it would 

be used for such purpose. Under 49 U.S.C. § 44726, the FAA must revoke the certificates of any 

certificate holder or an individual who has a controlling or ownership interest in the holder who 

was convicted of a violation of federal law relating to the installation, production, repair, or sale 

of a counterfeit or fraudulently-represented aviation part or material or knowingly, and with the 

7-2 
10/01/07 2150.38 

intent to defraud, carried out or facilitated an activity punishable under such a law. The 

Administrator may waive that sanction to facilitate law enforcement purposes or amend, rather 

than revoke, a certificate under certain circumstances. See 49 U.S.C. §§ 44726(±) and (g). 

(6) Mandatory certificate action for security concerns. Under 49 U.S.C. § 46111, the 

Administrator is required to issue an order amending, modifYing, suspending, or revoking any 

FAA-issued certificate if the Administrator is notified by the Under Secretary of Border and 

Transportation Security (BTS) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that the 

certificate holder poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to 

airline or passenger safety. Under 49 U.S.C. § 44924, the Administrator is required, at the 

request of the Under Secretary of BTS, to suspend or revoke foreign repair station certificates in 

connection with security audits. 

3. Applicability and Exclusions. The sanction guidance table (table) in Appendix B provides 

types of sanctions and general ranges of sanction amounts for violations of 49 U.S.C. subtitle VII 

and 14 C.F.R. parts 1-199 and 49 U.S.C. subtitle IX, chapter 701 and 14 C.F.R. chapter III. 

Once the agency has determined that legal enforcement action is warranted for a violation, FAA 

enforcement personnel use the table and paragraph 4 of this chapter, as well as any other 

sanction guidance in this order, to determine a proposed sanction. The matters described in 

chapter 7, subparagraphs 3a.-d. are some types of agency action that fall outside the scope of 

paragraph 3 and the table. 

a. Decisions to Take Administrative Action (Warning Notices or Letters of 

Correction). An administrative action does not constitute either a formal adjudication of the 

incident or a finding of violation. For that reason, FAA investigative personnel do not propose a 

sanction using the table. 

b. The FAA's Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion. The decision whether to prosecute a 

particular case is based on a review of the evidence and relevant policy and litigation 

considerations. The agency exercises broad discretion in both the initial decision to bring a legal 

enforcement action, and in any later determination to compromise or settle a case based on 

various considerations. The FAA's discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be 

immune from review. Heckler v. Cheney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

c. Hazardous Materials Violations. Actions involving violations of the federal hazardous 

materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. chapter 51, or the Department ofTransportation's 

Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 C.F.R. parts 106 through 185. Enforcement sanction 

guidance for these violations is found in Appendix C. 

d. Violations by Members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The FAA is required to forward 

reports of these violations to the Secretary of the department concerned under 49 U.S.C. 

§ 4610l(b), whenever the violator is acting in the performance of official duties. The FAA, 

however, takes remedial action in addition to referring a report when the violator, whether or not 

7-3 
10/01/07 2150.38 

acting in the performance of official military duties, holds an FAA certificate, and the violator's 

qualifications are at issue. The FAA may take punitive action against a member of the U.S. 

Armed Forces for a violation committed when the member is not performing official duties. 

4. Mitigating or Aggravating Factors and Elements. The factors in chapter 7, subparagraphs 

4.a. through m. have been developed over years of policy making and case adjudication. They 

have proven useful and appropriate for determining the seriousness of a violation and for 

selecting an appropriate sanction. Elements for evaluating and weighing each factor are also 

described. These factors and elements provide a framework for determining sanctions for 

violations specifically listed in the table as well as those not specifically listed. All the factors 

and elements, however, may not apply to each violation. Only those factors and elements that 

are relevant to a violation are considered in determining a sanction for the violation. This list of 

factors and elements is not intended to be exhaustive; other factors may be relevant as well .. 

a. Nature of the Violation. Three elements define the nature of a violation: first, whether 

the violation was operational or non-operational; second, whether the violation involved careless 

or reckless conduct; and third, whether the violation involved any special aggravating or 

mitigating factors. 

(I) Individuals. When an individual who holds a certificate improperly exercises the 

privileges of that certificate, the natural consequence of that act should be loss of privileges for a 

period of time commensurate with the violation. The FAA, therefore, primarily uses certificate 

actions to enforce operational regulations against individuals who hold certificates. The 

potential adverse impact that certificate action may have on an individual's livelihood does not 

alter this principle. Non-operational violations may warrant a different type of sanction. 

(2) Entities. The FAA ordinarily takes civil penalty action against a certificate-holding 

entity (for example, an air carrier) when it determines there would be a substantial adverse 

impact on the public interest from disrupted service by that certificate holder and the impact is 

not outweighed by safety considerations. Even when a substantial adverse impact would occur, 

when there is a need to prevent continuing violations or other egregious conduct by any 

certificate holder, when any certificate holder lacks qualification, or there is a reasonable basis to 

question the qualifications of any certificate holder, the FAA takes remedial action, for example, 

revocation or indefinite suspension, as necessary. 

(3) Careless or reckless conduct. Violations that involve careless or reckless conduct in 

violation of I 4 C.F .R. § 9 I. I 3 may warrant more severe sanctions. Carelessness connotes 

conduct that falls below the standard of care or prudence expected of a reasonable person, or 

holder of the relevant certificate, acting under the same or similar circumstances. Recklessness 

connotes conduct that demonstrates a gross, or even callous or flagrant, disregard for safety. 

Aircraft operations that do not otherwise result in a violation of a specific regulation should be 

evaluated in light of these standards to determine whether they constitute careless or reckless 

operations in violation of 14 C.F .R. § 9 I .13. When a person operates an aircraft in violation of a 

specific regulation other than 14 C.P.R.§ 91.13, however, that violation constitutes a careless or 

reckless operation in and of itself. In these cases, the misconduct may also result in a violation 

of I 4 C.F .R. § 91.13 if it actually or potentially endangers the lives or property of others. 

7-4 
10/01/07 2150.38 

When calculating the amount of sanction based on this factor, a distinction generally is drawn 

between instances where 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 is an independent violation and those where it is 

residual to another violation. When a 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 violation is residual only, a higher 

sanction generally is not warranted unless the conduct is also reckless. 

b. Whether the Violation was Inadvertent and Not Deliberate. If a violation is 

deliberate or not inadvertent, a sanction at the upper end of the range or exceeding the range for 

that type of violation generally is appropriate. A deliberate violation generally warrants a 

sanction that is more severe than one that is just not inadvertent. 

(I) Not deliberate. This element means a lack of the degree of deliberation found in 

intentional misconduct. Deliberate or intentional misconduct is an aggravating circumstance and 

includes deliberate conduct that leads to a violation as well as circumstances indicating intent to 

commit a violation. 

(2) Inadvertence. An act is inadvertent when it is the result of both inattention and lack 

of purposeful choice. For example, an inadvertent act occurs when a pilot flies at an incorrect 

altitude because he or she misread the aircraft's instruments; however, it is not an inadvertent act 

when a pilot flies at an incorrect altitude as a result of choosing not to consult the aircraft's 

instruments or choosing not to use other available means to verify altitude. The test to be applied 

is whether the conduct, not the factual or legal consequences, is inadvertent and unintended. 

Ferguson v. National Transportation Safety Board, 678 F.2d 821, 828-829 (9th Cir. 1982). 

c. Certificate Holder's Level of Experience. 

(I) Level of experience refers primarily to the type of certificate and ratings held (for 

example, student, private, commercial, airline transport pilot, or certified flight instructor), and 

the number of hours flown, by the certificate holder. Certificate holders with greater levels of 

experience may be held to a higher standard. Thus, for example, commercial pilots may be held 

to a higher standard than private pilots and airline transport pilots may be held to an even higher 

standard than commercial pilots. 

(2) In determining an appropriate sanction, the FAA may consider the extent to which 

the certificate holder's action deviated from the degree of care and diligence normally expected 

of a person with the certificate holder's level of experience. A significant deviation from the 

degree of care and diligence expected of the holder of that certificate may warrant a more 

aggravated sanction. 

d. Attitude of the Violator. 

(I) A good compliance attitude is the norm and does not warrant a reduction in sanction. 

A prior violation history may suggest that a person has a poor compliance disposition, which is 

an aggravating factor. Furthermore, a person who commits an act or omission contrary to 

statutory or regulatory requirements after receiving notice through a prior administrative action 

or counseling that such conduct is in violation of those requirements might well be regarded as 

having a poor compliance disposition. In evaluating compliance disposition, the FAA does not 

7-5 
10/01/07 2150.38 

view an alleged violator as having a poor attitude because the alleged violator fails to respond to 

a letter of investigation, chooses to be represented by counsel, or contests the violation. 

(2) In assessing the attitude of an alleged violator, the FAA may consider the declaration 

of an emergency to air traffic controL When an emergency is genuine and not of the person's 

own making, the emergency is exculpatory under 14 C.FK § 9L3(b). However, this situation is 

distinct from the situation where a declaration of emergency is not exculpatory but is a factor that 

might be appropriate to consider in determining sanction. In emergency situations, the FAA 

views declaring an emergency to air traffic control as a sign of good judgment and a constructive 

attitude. When an emergency is of a person's own making, that person's declaration of an 

emergency may be considered mitigating in determining the sanction to be imposed for any 

violations committed, in much the same way it is considered mitigating if a person voluntarily 

reports a violation. 

e. Degree of Hazard. 

(1) The degree of hazard may be increased as a result of the interplay ofthe operational 

environment (for example, weather conditions, congested vs. sparsely populated areas) and the 

nature of the threat to safety (to the life or property of another, including those in the aircraft 

being operated, to other aircraft, or to persons or property on the surface) that the misconduct 

presents. The safety threat is based on the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the 

misconduct For example, operating 500 feet below the minimum altitude poses a greater hazard 

than operating 100 feet below. Similarly, if an aircraft operator fails to comply with an 

airworthiness directive by operating 10 hours past a required inspection, the degree of hazard is 

probably not as great as when the aircraft is operated I 00 hours beyond the required. And it is 

not mitigating when a violation does not result in actual harm; that is simply fortuitous. 

(2) The sanction ranges reflect the degree of danger normally inherent in an average 

violation of a regulation, without aggravating circumstances. As discussed in chapter 7, 

subparagraph 5.b., an increase in the degree of hazard may form the basis for exceeding the 

sanction ranges. For example, the range for an unauthorized low flight does not assume extreme 

departures from required altitudes, for example, flying an airplane over a crowded assembly of 

persons at 50 feet 

f. Action Taken by Employer or Other Authority. This factor ordinarily involves the 

following elements: whether the alleged violator's employer has taken disciplinary action and 

whether criminal prosecution is involved. 

(I) Employment discipline. Where the violation would normally call for a certain type 

of enforcement action, the FAA takes that action regardless of any action taken by the violator's 

employer. Generally, the FAA does not credit an employer's disciplinary action toward a period 

of suspension the FAA imposes against the violator's certificate because of the different 

purposes of government-ordered, as contrasted with employer-ordered, actions. 

(2) Criminal prosecution. When arising out of the same conduct, local, state, or federal 

prosecution does not preclude the FAA from taking appropriate remedial enforcement action; nor 

7-6 
10/01/07 2150.38 

does it preclude the FAA from taking appropriate punitive enforcement action. For cases where 

federal, state, or local authorities prosecute criminally, the FAA generally does take remedial 

enforcement action if that is warranted despite the criminal prosecution. However, the FAA does 

not generally take punitive legal enforcement action for the same conduct, unless it believes the 

criminal sanctions are not sufficient to provide an adequate deterrent for future violations by the 

violator and others similarly situated, or when the FAA wants to establish a violation history 

record. If the FAA decides to proceed with a punitive civil enforcement action in addition to the 

criminal prosecution, it generally considers the criminal penalties incurred in those proceedings 

in determining the appropriate amount of sanction to be sought in the FAA's punitive 

enforcement action. 

g. Use of a Certificate. This factor relates to the nature or kind of activity or operation 

involved at the time the violation was committed. Whether the certificate holder was engaged in 

student, private, commercial, or airline activity bears on the severity of the sanction. Air carriers 

are held to the highest standard of care. Likewise, personnel engaged in air transportation are 

held to the highest safety standard. 

h. Violation History. 

(I) A violation-free history is the expected norm, not the exception and, therefore, is not 

a mitigating factor. Sanction ranges in the table generally represent the normal range of sanction 

for a single, first-time, inadvertent violation. Given the expected norm, a prior violation record 

can be evidence of a poor compliance disposition or of a pattern of disregard for the FAA's 

regulations, which are aggravating factors. As a result, a violation history can justifY imposing a 

sanction at the higher end of the normal range or a sanction beyond the normal range. It might 

also justifY revocation rather than suspension if the pattern of violation reflects a lack of 

qualification. In addition, a violation history might justifY a certificate suspension if previously 

issued civil penalties have not produced the desired deterrent effect. In deciding whether a 

violation history justifies aggravating the sanction or changing the usual type of sanction, the 

FAA considers the length of time that has elapsed between violations, whether the violations 

involved the same or similar regulations, and whether the violations are factually similar. 

(2) The following actions constitute violation history when they involve regulatory 

violations and become final: orders of amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of an 

FAA certificate; orders assessing a civil penalty; findings of violation contained in a consent 

order, order of compliance or denial; and findings of violation made by a federal court. In 

addition, a party may agree as part of a settlement that the FAA may consider alleged violations 

as findings of violation for future sanction determinations. 

i. Decisional Law. Decisions of the FAA decisionmaker represent the FAA 

Administrator's position on issues arising in civil penalty assessment actions, including issues 

regarding sanctions. The policy in this order also represents the Administrator's position on 

sanctions in legal enforcement actions. To the extent that this document conflicts with FAA 

decisionmaker decisions published before this document's issuance, the sanction guidance policy 

in this order supersedes those decisions. However, FAA decisionmaker decisions published after 

7-7 
10/01/07 2150.38 

the issuance of this document that conflict with the policy in this order supersede this document 

and are controlling. 

j. Ability to Absorb Sanction. Sanctions should be deterrent. While punitive sanctions 

should not be unduly harsh, they should be substantial enough to prevent violators from profiting 

from their violations, that is, the sanction should be high enough to remove any profit incentive 

for violations. Penalties should never be permitted to be a cost of doing business. Air carriers, 

in particular, are required by law to have the financial wherewithal to operate according to 

established safety standards. While the FAA does not allow financial circumstances to excuse 

any violation, it does consider a carrier's size and financial strength in choosing the appropriate 

sanction amount. The difference in the penalties fixed in the law for large and small business 

concerns recognizes this fact. A civil penalty that may be a mere cost of doing business to a 

major air carrier might compel a small air carrier to go out of business. Therefore, the FAA uses 

air carrier size as one means of ensuring a relatively equivalent deterrent effect on each air 

carrier that violates the same FAA regulation. The resulting classification of air carriers by size 

and ranges of civil penalties are set forth in part one of the table. For all entities and individuals, 

the FAA considers ability to pay a civil penalty and the effect a civil penalty will have on a 

person's ability to continue in business to the extent it knows such information. 

k. Consistency of Sanction. One of the agency's goals is to achieve relative consistency in 

imposing similar sanctions for similar violations. The FAA pursues this objective to assure 

fairness and so the sanction's impact has an equivalent degree of deterrent or disciplinary value 

to others similarly situated. This goal may not always be achieved, however, because of the 

inherently subjective nature of the exercise of judgment in setting sanctions. 

I. Whether the Violation was Reported Voluntarily. 

(1) The FAA has programs that allow persons to report voluntarily apparent violations 

and receive lesser enforcement action provided certain criteria are met. These programs include 

the aviation safety reporting program, the voluntary disclosure reporting program, and the 

aviation safety action program. Besides these programs, the FAA may grant special enforcement 

consideration under certain circumstances to a person who, incident to his or her report of 

another's violations, voluntarily discloses his or her own participation in the same or related 

violations. This special enforcement consideration may range from mitigating the sanction to 

determining that no enforcement action is required. 

(2) If a person is not covered under one of these programs but nonetheless voluntarily 

reports an apparent violation to the FAA before the FAA discovers it, takes immediate action to 

correct the noncompliance, and works with the FAA on steps to preclude recurrence of the 

apparent violation, the FAA may consider such actions in mitigating the sanction for the 

violation. 

m. Corrective Action. The FAA considers corrective action a mitigating factor in 

determining sanction provided the corrective action exceeds the minimum regulatory or statutory 

requirements. The amount of credit given in setting a sanction depends on the extent and timing 

of the corrective action, that is, how extensive was the corrective action and how quickly was it 

taken. Implementing new procedures that are above those required under the FAA's regulations 

7-8 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

to prevent future violations ordinarily is considered a mitigating factor in determining an 

appropriate sanction. Corrective action taken after the alleged violator first becomes aware of a 

deficiency but before FAA discovery of the violation ordinarily warrants greater mitigation than 

corrective action that is taken only after the alleged violator receives notice of the FAA's 

enforcement action. Corrective action taken by an alleged violator that simply brings that person 

into compliance with the statutory or regulatory requirements is not considered in mitigation of 

sanction. To mitigate a sanction based on such corrective action would put at an economic 

disadvantage competitors who have expended the resources necessary to maintain compliance. 

5. Use of the Table of Sanctions. 

a. General. Sanction determinations are not accomplished through a strict mathematical 

formula; rather, sanction determinations result from a judgment of where a case lies along a 

spectrum of gravity. Ultimately, the circumstances of each case are evaluated in terms of the 

needs of safety and the public interest. 

b. Single, First-time, Inadvertent Violations. 

(1) Part II of the table specifies both the normal types of sanction (certificate action, civil 

penalty action, or other type) and the normal ranges within those types the FAA ordinarily seeks 

to impose in a legal enforcement action for a single, first-time violation that is generally 

inadvertent (the table includes ranges of sanctions for several violations that usually are 

intentional, for example, interference with a crewmember, smoking on an aircraft). In addition, 

the table generally reflects a presumption that the alleged violator wants to comply with the law 

and to remedy any noncompliance and that the alleged violator, therefore, has a constructive 

attitude. 

(2) For factors b, d, or h of paragraph 4 (that is, inadvertent and not deliberate conduct, 

attitude, and violation history), the FAA does not normally deviate from the ranges listed in the 

table solely based on the inadvertence of the violation or on the alleged violator's good 

reputation, past public service, violation-free history, or constructive attitude. Any mitigating 

circumstances are to be found in the facts and circumstances of the violation itself. 

(3) Applying ranges within a sanction type. In determining where, within each range, a 

sanction should be imposed, the FAA generally considers factors a, c, e, f, g, i, j, k, and m of 

paragraph 4 (that is, nature of the violation, level of experience, degree of hazard, action by 

employer or other authority, use of certificate, decisional law, ability to absorb sanction, 

consistency of the sanction with similar cases, corrective action), to the extent they are applicable 

or relevant. When determining a specific sanction amount within a range, FAA enforcement 

personnel begin with an amount in the middle of the range and increase that amount toward the 

higher end of the range for aggravating factors or decrease that amount toward the lower end of 

the range for mitigating factors. 

( 4) Deviating from ranges within a sanction type. The FAA might impose sanctions 

below the normal ranges based on justifiable mitigation under factors j, I, and m of paragraph 4 

(that is, the ability to absorb the sanction, voluntary reporting, corrective action). The FAA may 

7-9 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

impose sanctions above the normal ranges when the following circumstances, relating to factors 

b, d, e, and h of paragraph 4 are present: the violation is other than inadvertent4

, the violator has 

a violation history, the violation involves a significant degree of hazard, or the violator has a 

poor compliance disposition. The ranges also may be exceeded when the case involves multiple 

violations. (See chapter 7, paragraphs 6 and 7). 

c. Types of Sanction. 

(1) General. The FAA ordinarily does not initiate punitive civil penalty and punitive 

certificate actions (that is, fixed-period certificate suspensions) against a certificate holder for the 

same offense. While electing to impose one sanction is not a legal bar to a concurrent 

proceeding to impose another, pursuing both actions solely for punitive purposes usually is not 

necessary. The FAA takes remedial and punitive actions in the same case, however, when 

warranted. 

(2) Selecting types of sanctions. Except in exceptional circumstances, the FAA uses the 

type of sanction recommended in the table. The FAA must impose any sanction mandated by 

statute (for example, revocation under 49 U.S.C. §§ 44106(b), 44710(b), and 44726(b) unless 

waived by the Administrator). 

6. General Guidance on Multiple Acts or Multiple Violations. 

a. Description of Multiple Violations. Enforcement actions often involve multiple 

violations: multiple violations of a single regulation; a single violation of multiple regulations; 

or multiple violations of multiple regulations. In addition, under 49 U .S.C. § 4630 I (a)(2), if a 

violation is a continuing one, each day the violation continues, or each flight for which the 

violation was committed, constitutes a separate offense. 

b. General Sanction Guidance. Multiple violations ordinarily result in high sanction 

amounts. Such sanction amounts ordinarily are not determined by simply adding up the 

individual penalties for multiple violations set forth in the table, however. Simply adding up the 

individual penalties for each violation could result in compounding a sanction in a 

disproportionately harsh manner for the conduct involved. Conversely, multiple violations may 

be so serious in their consequences for safety and the public interest as to require a penalty 

greater than the sum of the recommended amount of penalty provided for in the table for each 

violation. 

c. Single Act of Noncompliance Resulting in Multiple Violations. When a single 

instance of noncompliance results in multiple violations of general and specific regulations 

involving the same or similar conduct, the FAA ordinarily does not compound the sanction to 

reflect the amount of sanction recommended in the table for each regulatory violation. In 

calculating the amount of sanction for multiple violations, FAA enforcement personnel consider 

4 "When the violation is one that is generally inherently deliberate (e.g., interference with crewmember or smoking 

violations), factor b. is not considered in determining whether the sanction should be above the range in the table. 

The ranges in the table for such violations already have taken into consideration the inherently deliberate nature of 

the violation. 

7-10 
10/01/07 2150.3B 

the totality of circumstances relating to the multiple violations, including the alleged violator's 

degree of culpability, and whether the alleged violator had taken steps, although unsuccessful, to 

prevent the violations. 

d, Type of Legal Enforcement Action. Where this guidance designates the type oflegal 

enforcement action for a single violation, the FAA ordinarily selects the same type of sanction 

for multiple violations of a similar nature. The seriousness of multiple violations, however, may 

require changing what is normally a civil penalty action to a certificate action or, sometimes, a 

punitive certificate suspension to a remedial revocation action. 

7. Special Considerations for Numerous Multiple Violations Resulting From an Initial Act 

or Omission. To determine penalties for numerous multiple violations that result from an initial 

act or omission, the FAA applies the special considerations and gnidance in chapter 7, 

subparagraphs 7.a. through e. These cases involve such a high number of multiple violations that 

ifF AA enforcement personnel were simply to add the recommended amounts of penalty for each 

flight or day that constitutes a separate violation, the resulting sanction amount could be 

disproportionately harsh for the misconduct involved, in an average case. 

a. Determining Proposed Penalty. To determine an appropriate civil penalty in a case 

involving numerous multiple violations resulting from an initial act or omission (for example, an 

aircraft operated on a dozen or more flights after being improperly returned to service), FAA 

enforcement personnel: 

(1) IdentifY each initial act or omission that caused or resulted in the multiple violations 

(for example, improper maintenance plus improper return to service; failure to maintain a quality 

contra l system). 

(2) Consult the table in Appendix B and the general guidance in chapter 7, paragraph 4, 

on aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the amount of penalty appropriate for each 

initial act or omission that caused or resulted in the multiple violations (for example, in 

airworthiness cases, a penalty for the act of improper maintenance or inspection; in 

manufacturing cases, a penalty for the act of failing to maintain a quality control system). 

(3) Determine the amount of penalty for the numerous multiple violations by applying 

the guidance in chapter 7, subparagraphs 7.b. through d. Of particular importance in determining 

an appropriate sanction for numerous multiple violations is the degree of the alleged violator's 

culpability for the multiple violations. A lower degree of culpability is present when the alleged 

violator neither knew nor was likely to discover the continuing violations. For example, once 

improper maintenance was done there were no signs of it from such things as discrepancies 

reported by the crew, and no inspections that would have led to its discovery were scheduled. A 

more significant degree of culpability is present when factors such as the following are present: 

• the initial act or omission was entered in records that should have led to 

immediate detection and correction; 

• the initial act or omission remained undetected and continued through required 

inspections or checks designed to reveal such discrepancies; 

7-11 
10/01/07 2150.38 

• the alleged violator was not following maintenance or inspection procedures the 

FAA had approved or accepted; 

• the level of the alleged violator's organization that was aware of, or involved in 

the noncompliance included management (for example, management implemented policies that 

contributed to the violations), although an alleged violator's culpability does not require 

management involvement; 

• the alleged violator has a history of similar violations or a history of systemic 

deficiencies. 

Knowing and willful violations connote the highest degree of culpability. 

(4) Add the penalties arrived at for the initial violation to the penalty for the multiple 

violations. 

b. Limitations on Total Civil Penalty Amounts for Numerous Multiple Violations. 

(!)In an average case involving numerous inadvertent, multiple violations resulting from 

a single act or omission, that is, not one that is covered by chapter 7, subparagraphs 7.c. or 7.d., 

the total civil penalty for the multiple violations ordinarily falls within the ranges provided in 

either Fignre 7-1 or 7-2. The group classifications are defined in part I of Appendix B. 

(2) The term isolated in Figures 7-1 and 7-2 typically describes a single instance of an 

employee's failure to follow a statutory or regulatory requirement, contrary to the company's 

own practice or procedure. A case may involve a number of isolated and unrelated violations. 

Each group of the multiple violations resulting from each isolated violation ordinarily is subject 

to the isolated, inadvertent ranges in Fignres 7-1 or 7-2. 

(3) Inadvertent failures are considered systemic if they are repetitive or otherwise 

demonstrate an underlying deficiency in the alleged violator's system, practices, or procedures. 

Systemic failures generally warrant more substantial penalties and indicate a need for corrective 

action. 

(4) The aggravating or mitigating factors and elements in chapter 7, paragraph 4. are 

considered to determine an appropriate civil penalty within the applicable range in Figure 7-1 or 

7-2, for the multiple violations resulting from the initial act or omission. Of particular 

importance is an evaluation of the seriousness of the potential hazard caused by the violation and 

the degree of culpability of the alleged violator for the multiple violations. 

7-12