TJNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

JOIIN RUDOLPH EDMONDS,

RespondenL

Docket Number 2023-0041

Enforcement Activity Number 7542609

By: Honorable Walter J. Brudzinski. Chief Administrative Law Judge

Appearances:

ERIC A. BAUER

USCG Suspension and Revocation National Center of Expertise

For the Coast Guard

JOHN RUDOLPH f,DMONDS, Pra se

For the Respondent

vs

DEFAULT ORDER

Issued: April 20. 2023
ORDER GRANTING COAST GUARD'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT ORDER

On February 7 , 2023, the Ufited States Coast Guard Suspension and Revocation National

Center of Expertise (Coast Guard) filed a Complaint against JOHN RUDOLPH EDMONDS

(Respondent) seeking to revoke his Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC). The Coast Guard

alleges Respondent is a security risk who poses a threat to the safery or security ofa vessel or

structure located within or a jacent to the marine environment' as described by 46 U'S'C' $

7703(5). The Coast Guard further alleges Respondent's conviction under the Code of Virginia $

18.2-51, Attempt Malicious Wounding and Malicious Wounding' would prevent the issuance or

renewal of his MMC' as described by 46 U'S'C' $ 7703(2)'

Specifically' on May 8' 2022' the Transportatiofl Security Administration (TSA)

determined Respondent does oot meet the security thrsat assessmeflt standards described in 49

C.F.R. $ 1572'5 and poses an imminent security *reat in accordurce with 49 C'F R' $

1572.21(dX3)' thereby revoking his Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) in

accordance with 49 C'F'R S 1572'5(b)' ln aggravation' the Coast Guard argues' Respondent's

ineligibility to possess a TWIC is proof he is not eligible for an MMC' in accordance with 46

"" 1'-*;::';::":'::: alieges Respondent viorated 46 U s c' $ 7703(2) ror a

conviction that would preclude the issuance or renewal ofhis MMC Particularly' on JanuaU 13'

2022, the Chesapeake Circuit Court convicted Respondent of violating Code of Virginia $ 18 2-

51 for Attempt Malicious Wounding and Malicious Wounding both felony convictions' The

Coast Guard argues' in aggravation' the Chesapeake Circuit Court also convicted Respondent of

violatingCodeofVirginia$18.2-53.lforUseFirearminFelonyl"toffense,inconnectionwith

Code of Virginia $ 18'2-51

2
The Coast Guard filed its Return of Service for Complaint on February 10, 2023,

indicating it served a copy ofsaid compraint to Respondent at his residence by express courier.

A person ofsuitable age and discretion residing at the residence signed for the document on

February ro' 2023 ' As set forth in the compraint, Respondent's Answer is due within 20 days of

recerpt m accordance with 33 C.F.R. $ 20.30g

March2,2023.

Respondent,s Answer was due no later than

To date, Respondent has neither filed an Answer nor requested. an extension of time to

file an Answer; therefore, the coast Guard filed its Motion for Defaurt order (Default Motion)

on March 9, 2023, requesting the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issue a Defaurt order against

Respondent imposing the sanction asked for in the complaint. The coast Guard subsequently

filed a Renrm of Service for the Default Motion showing it served a copy of said Default Motion

to Respondent at his residence by express courier. Respondent signed for the document on

March 13,2023.

Title 33 C.F.R. $ 20.310 provides "the respondent alleged to be in default shall file a

reply to the motion 20 days or less after service ofthe motion." Respondent's reply was due no

later than April 3,2023 (April 2,2o23,was a Sunday). To date, Respondent has not filed his

reply.

On April 11,2023, the ALJ Docketing Center assigned tlis matter to me for review and

adjudication. I have carefully reviewed this file and find that the applicable provisions of 33

C.F.R. $$ 20.310 and 20.304(d) and (h) have been complied with and Respondent is in

DEFAULT. Under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.310(c) a default constitutes an admission of all facts alleged

in the Complaint and a waiver ofRespondent's right to a hearing.

3
Accordingly, I find the violations alleged in the Complaint are PROVED. I have

carefully reviewed the Complaint and the Default Motion and further find the proposed sanction

ofrevocation is appropriate under the provisions of46 C.F.R. g 5.569.

SANCTION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent JOHN RUDOLPH EDMOND's Merchant

Mariner Credential is RB,VOKED.

IT IS FURTIIER ORDERED that Respondent immediately surrender his MMC to the

Investigating Officer at the United States Coast Guard Suspension and Revocation National

Center ofExpertise, 100 Forbes Drive, Martinsburg,Wy 25404. If Respondent knowingly

continues to use his MMC, he may be subject to criminal prosecution.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.310(e), for good cause shor n, an

Administrative Law Judge may set aside this finding of Default. Respondent may file a motion

to set aside the finding with the ALJ Docketing Center, Baltimore, MD.

PLEASE TAKE FIIRTHER NOTICE that service of this Order upon Respondent

serves to notiry Respondent ofhis right to appeal as set forth in 33 C.F.R. $$ 20.1001 - 20.1004

(Attachment A).

Done and dated Aprll20,2023

New York. NY

ue./ s4-r-A

HON. WALTER J. BRUDZINSKI

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ruDGE

LINITED STATES COAST GUARD

4