UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD.

Cornplainant,

VS

Preston Rolf Mertes.

Rcspondent.

Dockct Number 2023-0040

Enforccmcnt Actrvity No. 7 623217

DEFAULT ORDER

Issucd:.lune 23.2023

By: Administrativc Larv Judgc: Honorable Tommv B. Cantrell

Appearances:

Mr. Eric Bauer

Suspension & Revocation National Center of Expertise

For the Coast Guard

Preston Rolf Mertes, pro se

For Respondent

I
This matter comes before me on the United states coast Guard's (Coast Guard) Motion

for Default order. As of the date ofthis order, preston Rolf Mertes (Respondent) has not

responded to the Complaint or the Motion for Default. Upon revicw of the rccord and pertincnt

authority, the Coast Guard's Motion for Default is GRANTED.

I. Background

On February 6,2023.the Coast Guard filed a Complaint against Rcspondont allcging the

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) revoked Respondent's Transportation Worker

Identification Card (TWIC) because Respondent poses an imminent security threat in accordance

with 49 C.F.R. $ 1572.21(dX3). The Coast Guard also alleges on July 28,2022, Respondent was

convicted of violating North Carolina G.S. No. l4-33(CXl), Assault Inflicts Serious Injury upon

anothor person or uses a deadly weapon, a misdemeanor, by the Supcrior Court. Based on this

state conviction, the Coast Guard also alleges Respondent was convicted ofan offense that

would preclude the issuance or renewal of MMC, as described in 46 U.S.C. 7703(2). Thc Retum

of Service for Complaint filed by the Coast Guard indicates the Complaint was delivered to

Respondent personally with an Answer form by Special Agent Jeflrey Thomlcy ofthe Coast

Guard Investigative Servicc on February 6,2023.

On March 9, 2023, the Coast Guard filed a Motion for Default Order (Motion),

explaining Rcspondent 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 indicates the Motion was pcrsonally

delivered to Respondent in Currituck County North Carolina Detention Facility on April 25,

2023. Thereafter, the Chief Administrative Law Judge assigned the matter to me on May 23,

2023.

II. DISCUSSION

7
The applicable regulations require a respondent to "file a written answer to thc complaint

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

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

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

shown." 33 C.F.R. $ 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 propcrly served on Respondent containcd

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. Thc instructions

also informed Respondent an extension oltime could be requestcd "wilhin 20 days" of receipt.

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

Here, the record shows Respondent did not file an Answer and has made no attempt to

provide good cause for not doing so. Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates Respondent

asked for an extension of time. Accordingly, I find Respondent in default pursuant to 33 C.F.R.

$ 20.310(a). Default constitutes an admission ofall facts alleged in the Complaint and a waiver

ofthe right to a hearing. 33 C.F.R. $ 20.310(c). See Appeal Decision 2682 (REEVES) (2008).

As to the factual allegations in the Complaint conceming the TWIC revocation and the

conviction, as noted above, by operation ofthe default, Respondent admits to all these factual

allegations. Furthermore, after review ofthe factual allegations in the Complaint, I hnd they arc

legally sufficient to find Respondent is ineligible to hold an MMC and therefore the Complaint is

PROVED by admission. !!. Based on this finding, I also find the facts alleged in the

Complaint sufficient to &'arrant the sanction of REVOCATION. See 46 C.F.R. $ 10.235(h);46

u.s.c. 7703(2).
Accordingly, as ser forth above, upon consideration ofthc record, I find Respondent in

DEFAULT.

WHEREFORE,

ORDER

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

allegations set forth in the Complaint PROVED by admission.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, all of Respondcnt's Coast Guard issued credcntials,

including Respondent's MMC, are REVOKED.

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

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

service, or in person to: Suspension & Revocation National Centcr ofExpcrtise, 100 Forbes Dr,

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 ORDERED, Dursuant to 33 C.F.R. { 20.310(e). for sood causc

shown. an ALJ may set aside a findins ofdefault. A motion to sct aside a findi ng of default may

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

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

412 40 S. Gay Street; Baltimore, MD 21202-4022.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, servicc of this Default Order on the parties serves as notice

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

SO ORDERED.

,1
Done and dated this

Galveston, Texas

23rd day ofJune 2023, at

HON. TOMMY B. CANTRELL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

5