I

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

TNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD.

Complainant,

VS.

JADEN SAGE LARKIN.

Respondent.

Docket Number 2023 -0046

Enforcement Activity No. 7542676

DEFAULT ORDER

Issued: Mav l, 2023

Bv Administrative Law Judee: Honorable Timothv G. Stueve

Appcarances:

Eric Bauer

USCG S&R National Center of Expertise

For the Coast Guard

Jadcn Sagc Larkin, pro se

For Respondent
Background

On February 8, 2023, the Coast Guard filed a Complaint against Jaden Sage Larkin

(Respondent). The Return of Service for Complaint filed by the Coast Guard indicates the

Complaint was delivered to Respondent's residence by Express Courier Service and signed for

by a person ofsuitable age and discretion residing at the residence on February 22,2023

(Attachment A).

On March 20, 2023, the Coast Guard filed a Motion for Default Order (Motion),

explaining Respondent failed to file an Answer, and the response time has passed. See 33 C.F.R.

$ 20.308. The Retum of Service for Motion for Default states the Motion was delivered to

Respondent's residence by Federal Express and signed for by a person ofsuitable age and

discretion residing at the residence on March 21,2023 (Attachment B). The Chief

Administrative Law Judge assigned the matter to me on April l'7 ,2023.

Discussion

The applicable regulations require a respondent to "file a written answer to the complaint

20 days or less after service ofthe complaint." 33 C.F.R. $ 20.308(a). An administrative law

judge (ALJ) may find a respondent in default "upon failure to file a timely answer to the

complaint or, after motion, upon failure to appear at a conference or hearing without good cause

shown." 33 C.F.R. S 20.310(a). Default constitutes an admission of all facts alleged in a

complaint and a waiver ofrespondent's right to a hearing on those facts. 33 C.F.R. $ 20.310(c).

The Complaint filed by the Coast Guard and properly served on Respondent contained

instructions that clearly stated "YOU MUST RESPOND TO THIS COMPLAINT WITHIN 20

DAYS" and provided the applicable regulatory provision, 33 C.F.R. $ 20.308. The instructions
also informed Respondent an extension of time courd be requested ..within 

20 days,,ofreceipt

Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint or the Motion for Default Order.

Accordingly, I find Respondent in default pursuant to 33 C.F.R. g 20.310(a). Default

constitutes an admission ofa, facts a,eged in the compraint and a waiver ofthe right to a

hearing. 33 C.F.R. $ 20.310(c). See Aoneal Decision 2682 (REEVES) (2008).

Turning to the first allegation in the Complaint, the Coast Guard alleges on May 30,

2022' the Transportation security Administration (TSA) determined Respondent does not meet

the security threat assessment standards described in 49 C.F.R. $ 1572.5, poses an imminent

security threat in accordance with 49 c.F.R. $ 1572.21(d)(3), and revoked Respondent,s TWIC

in accordance with 49 C.F.R. g 1572.5(b). As a result of TSA's actions, the Coast Guard asserts

Respondent is a security risk as described by 46 U.S.C. $ 7703(5).

Having concluded Respondent admitted TSA revoked his TWIC, and all other facts in the

Complaint, I agree TSA's determination that Respondent is not eligible to hold a TWIC is proof

that a mariner is not eligible to hold an MMC. See 46 C.F.R. $$ 10.235(h) and 10.235(i). Based

on these admissions, I find these facts as admitted are legally sufficient to find the single charge

that Respondent is a security risk as described in 46 U.S.C. $ 7703(5) PROVED. Id.

Tuming to the second allegation in the Complaint, the Coast Guard alleges that on June

23,2022, Respondent was convicted for battery, a felony, a conviction that would preclude the

issuance ofan MMC. Specifically, on June 23, 2022, Respondent was convicted ofviolating

Florida Statute $ 784.03(2) - battery, a felony, by the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit

in and for Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent's conviction of violating Florida Statute $

784.03(2), is a conviction ofan offense that would prevent the issuance or renewal of a Merchant

Mariner Credential, as described in 46 U.S.C. $ 7703(2).
I find the facts alleged in the Complaint sufficient to warrant the suggested sanction of

REVOCATION. See 46 C.F.R. $$ 10.235(h) and 10.235(i).

WHEREFORE,

ORDER

Upon consideration o[the record, I find Respondent in DEFAULT.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, in accordance with 33 C.F.R. S 20.310, I find the

allegations set forth in the Complaint PROVED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, all of Respondent's Coast Guard issued credentials,

including Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC), are REVOKED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, Respondent shall immediately deliver all Coast Guard

issued credentials, licenses, certificates, or documents, including the MMC, by mail, courier

service, or in person to: USCG Suspension and Revocation National Center of Expertise, 100

Forbes Drive, Martinsburg, WV 25404. In accordance with l8 U.S.C. $ 2197, if Respondent

knowingly continues to use the Coast Guard issued MMC, Respondent may be subject to

criminal prosecution.

IT IS FURTHER ORDER-ED, pursuant to 33 C.F.R. { 20.310(e), for sood cause

shown. an ALJ may set aside a findine of default. A motion to set aside a finding of default may

be filed with the ALJ Docketing Center in Baltimore. The motion may be sent to the U.S. Coast

Guard Administrative Law Judge Docketing Center; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk; Room

412; 40 S. Gay Street; Baltimore, MD 21201-4022.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, service of this Default Order on the parties serves as notice

ofappeal rights set forth in 33 C.F.R. $ 20.1001-20.1004 (Attachment C).

SO ORDERED.

Timothy G. Stueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard

Done and dated May 1,2023

Alameda, Califomia

,at