1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

THOMAS ROBERT STULL

Respondent

_________________________________

Docket Number: 2023-0402

Enforcement Activity Number: 7799225

ORDER MEMORIALIZING PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE, 

DENYING OCTOBER 30, 2023 MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT, AND CONSENT ORDER APPROVING DECEMBER 11, 2023 MOTION 

FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

 On December 11, 2023, I held a pre-hearing conference in this case, accordance with 33 

C.F.R. § 20.501(b). CWO Hector Melendez and Mr. Andrew S. Myers, Esq., appeared on behalf 

of the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard). Mr. Thomas Robert Stull (Respondent)

appeared on his own behalf.

At the outset, I advised Respondent of his right to be represented in these proceedings at 

his own expense. 33 C.F.R. § 20.301. I described my role as an Administrative Law Judge and 

my prior employment at the Coast Guard Suspension & Revocation National Center of 

Expertise. I inquired whether the parties had any questions related to my disclosures, and both 

responded in the negative. Ultimately, while neither the Coast Guard nor Respondent objected, I 

reminded the parties of the regulations set forth in 33 C.F.R. § 20.204.

Next, I turned to the reason for convening this conference. On October 30, 2023, the 

Coast Guard filed a Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order

(Motion). Upon review, Paragraph 2.a.1. of the Settlement Agreement contained incorrect 
2

citations to the definitions of "uninspected passenger vessel of less than 100 gross tons," and 

"passenger for hire," as set forth in 46 U.S.C. § 2101. These citations should be corrected to 46 

U.S.C. § 2101(53)(B) and 46 U.S.C. § 2101(30), respectively. 

I then addressed the completion date appearing in the table of Paragraph 6, which 

required Respondent to complete the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement by 

November 27, 2023. Given that the Motion was filed on October 30, 2023, the completion date 

listed does not allow sufficient time for Respondent to complete the probationary term listed in 

Paragraph 2. After discussion, the parties agreed that the completion date of November 27, 

2023, was written in error, and the completion date should be corrected to January 30, 2024,

which reflects the three-month timeline set forth in Paragraph 2 of the Settlement Agreement.

The parties indicated their desire to execute and submit a settlement agreement that 

corrects the errors discussed above. Accordingly, I DENIED the Motion filed on October 30, 

2023, and directed the parties to file a status update or any appropriate motion by January 12, 

2024. 

That same day, the Coast Guard submitted a second Motion for Approval of Settlement 

Agreement and Entry of Consent Order, which included a corrected Settlement Agreement. I 

have reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and reasonable and in 

substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

WHEREFORE,
3

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and 

Entry of Consent Order filed on October 30, 2023, is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, the Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and 

Entry of Consent Order filed on December 11, 2023, is GRANTED, and the Settlement 

Agreement submitted therewith is APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. 

This Consent Order shall constitute full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated December 19, 2023

Baltimore, Maryland

Hon. Lineka N. Quijano 

Administrative Law Judge 

United States Coast Guard