1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

TALLIFERRO SHANNANTHONY BUTLER 

Respondent

_________________________________

Docket Number 2010-0236

Enforcement Activity No. 3199299

DECISION AND ORDER

Issued: November 15, 2011

By Administrative Law Judge: Honorable Michael J Devine

Appearances:

LT PATRICK J. GRIZZLE

Sector Charleston

For the Coast Guard

TALLIFERRO SHANNANTHONY BUTLER, Pro se

For the Respondent

This Order is issued in accordance with 33 CFR 20.902(c), which authorizes the issuance 

of an initial oral decision. The United States Coast Guard initiated this administrative action 

seeking revocation of the Merchant Mariner’s Credential issued to Talliferro Butler, the 

respondent in this case. The Complaint dated May 26, 2010 alleged that Respondent, a holder of 

Coast Guard issued credentials, violated 46 U.S.C. 7704 and 46 CFR 5.35 (use of or addiction to 
2

dangerous drugs) on October 11, 2007 by presenting himself for random drug testing as required 

by his employer; that his specimen was collected and resulted in a positive test for cocaine 

metabolites. 

On June 8, 2010, Respondent filed an Answer in which he admitted the jurisdictional 

allegations and requested settlement discussions. On July 29, 2010 the parties submitted a 

Motion for Approval of a Settlement Agreement which was approved by a Consent Order on 

July 29, 2010. In the settlement agreement Respondent admitted both the jurisdictional and 

factual allegations including that he is the holder of MMD 182882, and to the factual allegations 

regarding participating in a random drug test and that the drug test results were positive for 

cocaine metabolites. 

On August 4, 2011 the Coast Guard submitted a Notice of Failure to Complete 

Settlement asserting that Respondent tested positive for marijuana from a urinalysis initiated on 

June 14, 2011 thereby violating the terms of the agreement and providing notice that the sanction 

of revocation stayed by the settlement agreement would be executed unless Respondent 

requested a hearing in keeping with the terms of the settlement agreement. Respondent 

submitted a request for a hearing on August 9, 2011. The Settlement Agreement provides that 

“[i]f the Respondent requests a hearing before an ALJ under the provisions of paragraph 4c, then 

the revocation will be stayed until the ALJ issues a final order. “The ALJ’s ruling on this 

request and any subsequent hearing will be final.” Respondent timely requested a hearing on 

his alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement, therefore, the undersigned scheduled a hearing 

to obtain sufficient information regarding the alleged failure to complete settlement and must 

review the record to determine whether Respondent has successfully completed all elements or 

was making positive progress towards completion of all elements of the drug rehabilitation 

program. In keeping with the terms of the settlement agreement the hearing was limited to the 

question of whether Respondent violated the terms of the settlement agreement. 
3

The evidentiary hearing was held in Charleston, South Carolina on November 9, 2011. 

The hearing was conducted in accordance with Administrative Procedure Act, amended and 

codified at 5 U.S.C. 551-59, Coast Guard Administrative Procedure statute codified at 46 U.S.C. 

7702, and the procedural regulations codified at 33 CFR Part 20.

At the hearing, LT Patrick Grizzle, Investigating Officer, and Ensign Walter Hutchins 

entered an appearance on behalf of the Coast Guard. Respondent also appeared at the hearing on 

his own behalf (pro se). 

After an opening statement the Coast Guard presented ten (10) exhibits which were 

admitted into evidence and three witnesses were presented. The Coast Guard presented a written 

Motion for a Decision & Order of Revocation which was entered as Court Exhibit I. The Coast 

Guard Motion was denied for the reasons stated in the record. Official Notice was taken that 

Coast Guard Exhibits 2, 3, and 5, were already contained in the administrative record and those 

exhibits were withdrawn and not offered into evidence. Coast Guard Exhibit 12 was never 

offered and was withdrawn by the agency. Both jurisdictional facts and the facts alleged in the 

Complaint were admitted by the settlement agreement of July 29, 2010. Respondent presented 

his own sworn testimony and also presented four (4) exhibits (A through D) which were 

admitted into evidence. Respondent did not offer any other matters into evidence. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, both parties waived post-hearing briefs in keeping with 

33 CFR 20.710 and a bench decision was issued orally finding the jurisdictional and factual 

allegations in this case proved by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and credible evidence. 

An Order directing revocation of Respondent’s MMD was issued. The findings of fact and 

conclusions of law may be summarized as follows:
4

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Respondent Talliferro Shannanthony Butler and the subject matter of this proceeding 

is within the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard vested under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 77. 

2. Pursuant to the original complaint and settlement agreement a consent order 

approving the settlement agreement was issued on July 29, 2010. Respondent 

submitted to a random drug test. 

3. Respondent admitted he is the holder of MMD 182882 and admitted to all of the 

jurisdictional and factual allegations in the original complaint. Jurisdiction is based 

on the fact that he was the holder of a MMD and performing activities under the 

authority of his credentials. Jurisdiction for this suspension and revocation 

proceeding exists under 46 CFR 5.57 and was not disputed at the hearing. 

4. Department of Transportation procedures were followed by the collector who 

obtained a specimen from Respondent on June 14, 2011.

5. Respondent’s original specimen collected on June 14, 2011 was forwarded for testing 

and resulted in a positive test result for marijuana metabolites. 

6. The MRO (Dr. Byron Williams) reviewed the results with Respondent and 

determined no valid excuse or medical explanation for the positive test result. 

7. The positive test result was verified in accordance with 49 CFR Part 40.

8. Respondent testified that he does not use dangerous drugs, contended that he 

apparently consumed marijuana in a salad and provided character evidence through 

documents. 

9. In keeping with Appeal Decision 2657 (BARNETT) (2006), a prima facie case of use 

of a dangerous drug was shown in this case because three elements are found proved: 
5

(1) a party was tested for use of a dangerous drug; (2) the test results showed a 

positive result for a dangerous drug; and (3) the drug test was conducted in 

accordance with Department of Transportation procedures in 49 CFR Part 40.

10. There is no valid medical explanation for the positive test result and Respondent’s 

evidence is not persuasive. The undersigned finds that Respondent failed to provide 

sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that he is a user of dangerous drugs that 

arises under 46 CFR 16.201.

11. Based on the record as a whole, the Coast Guard has proved by a preponderance of 

reliable and credible evidence that Respondent failed a random drug test for 

dangerous drugs (marijuana) and thereby violated the settlement agreement.

12. The positive test results from the June 2011 test constitutes a violation of paragraphs 

3 and 7 of the settlement agreement. 

WHEREFORE,

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT in keeping with the terms of the settlement 

agreement the stayed revocation of Respondent’s Merchant Mariner’s Document and all other 

Coast Guard licenses, certificates and documents issued to Respondent Talliferro Shannanthony 

Butler may be executed. The Merchant Mariner’s Document and all other Coast Guard licenses, 

certificates and documents issued to Respondent Talliferro Shannanthony Butler are 

REVOKED. Respondent’s Merchant Mariner credentials have been surrendered to the U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector Charleston Office, 196 Tradd Street, Charleston, South Carolina 29401 and 

shall be processed appropriately. Respondent must immediately surrender any other Coast 
6

Guard issued credentials to the Coast Guard, Sector Charleston. If you knowingly continue to 

use your Merchant Mariner credentials, you may be subject to criminal prosecution. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, within three (3) years or less, Mr. Butler may file a 

motion to reopen this matter and seek modification of the order of revocation upon a showing 

that the order of revocation is no longer valid and the issuance of a new license, certificate, or 

document is compatible with the requirement of good discipline and safety at sea. The 

revocation order may be modified upon a showing that the individual:

(1) Has successfully completed a bona fide drug abuse rehabilitation program;

(2) Has demonstrated complete non-association with dangerous drugs for a minimum of 

one year following completion of the drug rehabilitation program; and

(3) Is actively participating in a bona fide drug abuse monitoring program.

See generally 33 CFR 20.904; 46 CFR 5.901. The drug abuse monitoring program must 

incorporate random, unannounced testing during that year. Appeal Decision 2535 (SWEENEY).

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Service of this Order on the parties and/or 

parties’ representatives serves as notice of a Final Decision. In keeping with 33 CFR 20.502(c) 

and Paragraph 4 of the settlement agreement the undersigned ALJ’s ruling on this respondent’s 

request for review of the determination is final. However, the parties are given notice that they 

may be able to petition for review by the Commandant in keeping with 33 CFR 20.902(a). 

__________________________________________________

Michael J Devine

US Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge

Date: 

November 15, 2011
7

ATTACHMENT A – WITNESS AND EXHIBITS LISTS

WITNESS LIST

Coast Guard Witnesses

CG Witness 1 Mr. Richard Hathaway (collector)

CG Witness 2 Mr. Mitch Lebard (Assistant Director Medtox Lab)

CG Witness 3 Dr. Byron Williams, MRO

Respondent Witnesses

Resp. Witness 1 Respondent Talliferro Shannanthony Butler 

EXHIBIT LIST

Coast Guard Exhibits

CG Ex. 1 Copy of U.S. Merchant Mariner Document 182882 

CG Ex. 2 Settlement Agreement dated July 29, 2010 (Withdrawn) 

Official Notice taken in keeping with 33 CFR20.806 that this 

matter was already contained in the administrative record. 

CG Ex. 3 Consent Order dated July 29, 2010 (Withdrawn) 

Official Notice taken in keeping with 33 CFR 20.806 that this 

matter was already contained in the administrative record.

CG Ex. 4 Notice of June 14, 2011 test results

CG Ex. 5 Notice of Failure to Complete Settlement Agreement dated 

August 4, 2011 (Withdrawn) 

Official Notice taken in keeping with 33 CFR 20.806 that this 

matter was already contained in the administrative record.

CG Ex. 6 Federal Chain of Custody form from June 14, 2011 showing 

positive results (collector copy)

CG Ex. 7 Federal Chain of Custody form from June 14, 2011 showing 

positive results (Facility copy)
8

CG Ex. 8 Medtox Lab report form

CG Ex. 9 Medtox Lab Data Package

CG Ex. 10 Federal Chain of Custody form from June 14, 2011 showing 

positive results (MRO copy)

CG Ex. 11 MRO report/worksheet

CG Ex. 12 Statement of Investigating officer – Withdrawn and not offered by 

Agency at hearing.

CG Ex. 13 MRO certification

CG Ex. 14 Richard Hathaway certificate of collector training

Respondent Exhibits 

Resp. Ex. A Letter from Judge Myron Anderson, dated November, 2011

Resp. Ex. B Letter from Joe T, dated November 4, 2011

Resp. Ex. C Letter from John A. Hudnall, dated October 29, 2011

Resp. Ex. D Letter from Michael Scott Eubank, undated

Court Exhibit

Court Ex. I CG Motion for a Decision & Order of Revocation