1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

SAVERIO FRANCIS RESCIGNO 

Respondent

_________________________________

Docket Number 2015-0208

Enforcement Activity No. 5155114

DECISION AND ORDER

Issued: January 12, 2016

By Administrative Law Judge: Honorable Michael J Devine

Appearances:

CWO RYAN SINCLAIR

Sector Hampton Roads

AND

LINEKA QUIJANO, ESQ.

USCG S&R National Center of Expertise

For the Coast Guard

SAVERIO FRANCIS RESCIGNO, Pro se.

For the Respondent
2

Table of Contents

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT...........................................................................................................3

II. FINDINGS OF FACT ......................................................................................................................6

III. DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................7

A. Jurisdiction .............................................................................................................................7

B. Burden of Proof ......................................................................................................................9

C. Allegation of Misconduct .......................................................................................................9

1. Charge 1 ............................................................................................................................10

IV. ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW...................................................12

V. SANCTION .................................................................................................................................13

VI. ORDER......................................................................................................................................16

ATTACHMENT A.......................................................................................................................18

ATTACHMENT B.......................................................................................................................20
3

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard or USCG) initiated this 

administrative action seeking suspension of Saverio Francis Rescigno’s (Respondent) 

Merchant Mariner Credentials (MMC). 

The Coast Guard issued a Complaint on June 30, 2015, and amended the 

Complaint on October 19, 2015. The Amended Complaint alleges Respondent 

committed misconduct while serving as the Master of “the vessel MARY M IV, as 

required by law or regulation.” Specifically, the Coast Guard alleges on May 28, 2015: 

1) the MARY M IV, O/N 615080, was a United States uninspected1passenger vessel; 2) 

the MARY M IV did not have a valid Certificate of Inspection; 3) Respondent got the 

vessel underway with sixteen (16) passengers on board, at least one of which was a 

passenger for hire, on the Atlantic Ocean, a navigable waterway of the United States; 4) 

Respondent was in violation of 46 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 176.100(a); 

and 5) Violation of 46 C.F.R. § 176.100(a) is misconduct as described by Title 46 United 

States Code § 7703(1)(B) and defined by 46 C.F.R. § 5.27.

Respondent submitted timely answers to both the Original and the Amended 

Complaint indicating that he denied the jurisdictional allegation that he was acting under 

the authority of his MMC, and the factual allegations contained in paragraphs three (3), 

four (4), five (5), and six (6). This action is brought pursuant to the legal authority 

contained in 46 U.S.C. § 7703 and the underlying regulations codified at 46 C.F.R. Part 

5. 

 

1 The charge incorrectly indicates MARY M IV is an uninspected passenger vessel. The Certificate of 

Documentation and Certificate of Inspection along with the underlying assertion of a violation of 46 C.F.R. §

176.100(a) clearly show that the charge is for a small passenger vessel that is inspected. 
4

The hearing commenced in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on November 4, 2015. 

The proceeding was conducted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, as 

amended and codified at 5 U.S.C. § 551-59, and Coast Guard procedural regulations 

contained in 33 C.F.R. Part 20. At the hearing CWO Ryan Sinclair and Lineka Quijano, 

Esq. represented the Coast Guard. Respondent appeared at the hearing and represented 

himself (pro se). Five witnesses testified on behalf of the Coast Guard and Respondent 

testified on his own behalf. 

During the hearing, the ALJ admitted ten (10) Exhibits (Ex.) from the Coast 

Guard, without objection from Respondent. Respondent did not offer any exhibits into 

evidence at the hearing. A list of all witnesses and exhibits can be found in Attachment 

A.

The Coast Guard also requested official notice of 46 U.S.C. § 2101 regarding the 

definition of “passengers for hire”; and of the Title 46 C.F.R. Subchapter T regulations 

regarding small passenger vessels. Although relevant legal authority may be cited and 

referenced without official notice, Respondent had no objections, therefore, the Coast 

Guard’s request for the ALJ to take official notice of these references was granted. See

33 C.F.R. § 20.806. 

On December 11, 2015, the Coast Guard submitted a Post Hearing Brief 

containing enumerated Proposed Findings of Fact and Proposed Conclusions of Law. 

The Court has made findings of fact and conclusions of law as stated within the body of 

this Decision and Order, therefore separate rulings on the Coast Guard proposed findings 

and conclusions were not necessary. On December 4, 2015, Respondent submitted a 

letter indicating he had been unaware of the regulations regarding deactivation of the 
5

vessel MARY M IV’s Certificate of Inspection (COI). Since Respondent’s letter did not 

indicate it had been served on the Coast Guard Investigating Officer, the Court provided 

notice and a reminder to Respondent of the regulations requirement to serve the opposing 

party. Respondent has not submitted anything else for final argument, however, the 

matters and concerns raised in Respondent’s Post Hearing letter of December 4, 2015, 

have been considered in this Decision and Order.

As noted in footnote 1 above, the misconduct charge incorrectly indicates MARY 

M IV is an uninspected passenger vessel. The Certificate of Documentation (CG Ex. 03) 

and Certificate of Inspection (CG Ex. 05) along with the underlying assertion of a 

violation of 46 C.F.R. § 176.100(a) clearly show that the charge of misconduct is for 

failure to comply with a requirement for a small passenger vessel that is inspected. Since 

the error appears inadvertent and Respondent was clearly on notice of the charge I find 

this is harmless error. The Court hereby modifies the charge to conform to the proof in 

regard to the evidence presented at hearing. See Appeal Decision 2687 (HANSEN)

(2010) (ALJ has authority to amend pleadings to conform to proof). Respondent clearly 

had notice of the nature of the alleged violation and contested the matter. 

After careful review of the facts and applicable law in this case, I find the Coast 

Guard PROVED, by a preponderance of reliable and credible evidence, the allegations 

contained in the Charge as modified.

Pursuant to the interests of maritime safety as provided in 46 C.F.R. § 5.5, the 

ALJ orders Respondent’s mariner license shall be SUSPENDED OUTRIGHT for a 

period of three (3) months.
6

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

The following Findings of Fact are based on documentary evidence, witness 

testimony, and the entire record as a whole. 

1. Respondent is currently, and was at all times relevant to this proceeding, the 

holder of MMC #000293659. (CG Ex. 1). 

2. Respondent is the owner of the vessel MARY M IV. (CG Ex. 3).

3. The MARY M IV is a U.S. documented vessel that is 46.7 feet in length with a 

tonnage measurement of 40 gross registered tons. (CG Ex. 3).

4. On March 18, 2015, the Coast Guard deactivated the original Certificate Of 

Inspection for the MARY M IV because of a change in ownership and notified 

Respondent (owner) that he must schedule an inspection in order to obtain a 

new Certificate Of Inspection as a small passenger vessel. (Tr. at 23-24; CG 

Ex. 2). 

5. On April 7, 2015 Coast Guard marine inspectors boarded and inspected the 

MARY M IV and found several safety deficiencies. The Coast Guard required 

correction of the noted deficiencies before a COI would be issued. (Tr. at 39-

43, 45). 

6. The deficiencies noted from the April 7, 2015 inspection of the MARY M IV 

had not been resolved or acknowledged as corrected by the Coast Guard on 

May 28, 2015.

7. The deficiencies were acknowledged as corrected on or about July 7, 2015, at 

which time the MARY M IV was issued a new COI. (Tr. at 45; CG Ex. 5). 

8. On April 23, 2015, Mr. Willie Henderson, Treasurer of the Postal Anglers 

Fishing Club, contacted Respondent to reserve the MARY M IV for a fishing 

trip. Mr. Henderson and Respondent agreed upon a price for the trip. 

Respondent asked Mr. Henderson to send him $200.00 as a deposit for the 

fishing trip. (Tr. at 71, 76-78). 

9. On April 23, 2015, Mr. Henderson sent Respondent a $200.00 check, made 

payable to “Capt Sam Rescigno.” (Tr. at 77-78, CG Ex. 9). 

10. On April 28, 2015, Respondent cashed the $200.00 check. (Tr. at 82). 

11. On May 28, 2015, sixteen (16) individuals associated with the Postal Anglers 

Fishing Club embarked on the MARY M IV for a fishing trip. (Tr. at 84-85). 
7

12. On May 28, 2015, Respondent served as the Master on board the MARY M 

IV. (Tr. at 61-64, 85-86, 102). 

13. As Treasurer of the Postal Anglers Club, Mr. Henderson collected payments 

from the passengers to make payment to Respondent for the balance due for 

the May 28, 2015 fishing trip.

14. On May 28, 2015, while on board the MARY M IV, Respondent informed Mr. 

Henderson the balance owed was $960.00 and Mr. Henderson then wrote a 

$960.00 check, made payable to “Capt. Sam Rescigno,” and gave it to 

Respondent. (Tr. at 85-88, CG Ex. 10). 

15. Respondent returned the $960.00 check to Mr. Henderson before arriving at the 

pier on May 28, 2015. (Tr. at 87-88).

16. On May 28, 2015, the MARY M IV did not have a valid Certificate of 

 Inspection to operate as a small passenger vessel regulated under 46 C.F.R 

 Subchapter T. (Tr. at 27, 47) 

III. DISCUSSION

On May 28, 2015, the MARY M IV (O.N. 615080) a small passenger vessel 

owned and operated by Respondent, under command of Master Saverio Rescigno, 

(Respondent) departed port with sixteen (16) passengers for hire for a fishing voyage. 

(Tr. 61-64, 84-85, 102). Mr. Henderson, of the Angler’s club, had provided Respondent 

with a $200.00 deposit for the planned fishing trip and the sixteen (16) passengers aboard 

the vessel that day were there as part of the planned, club fishing trip. (Tr. at 71, 76-78; 

CG Ex. 09). 

A. Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is a question of fact and must be determined before the substantive 

issues of the case are decided. See Appeal Decision 2620 (COX) (2001). When a 

mariner is engaged in the service of a vessel the mariner is considered to be acting under 

the authority of their mariner credentials when the holding of such credentials is required 

by law and/or for condition of employment. See 46 C.F.R. § 5.57(a). The Coast Guard 
8

has jurisdictional authority to suspend or revoke a mariner’s credentials if the mariner 

violated a law or regulation, committed an act of negligence, and/or committed an act of 

misconduct while acting under the authority of that credential. See 46 U.S.C. § 

7703(1)(A).

The record contains sufficient evidence to prove jurisdiction. Respondent’s Answer 

admitted that he is the holder of MMC#000293659, but denied that he was acting under the 

authority of his MMC by operating the MARY M IV as master. See Answer to Amended 

Complaint. Respondent did not contest he was serving as master of the vessel on May 28, 

2015, but contended that since he returned the fees paid by the passengers before the end of 

the trip there were no passengers for hire and therefore no jurisdiction. (Answer; Tr. at 100-

02). 

In view of the undisputed facts, including Respondent’s testimony at the hearing 

regarding his actions operating the small passenger vessel MARY M IV as Master on May 

28, 2015, with passengers on board based on the Postal Anglers fishing club reservation and 

payment of a $200.00 deposit, jurisdiction was established. Respondent’s return of the 

additional $960.00 payment during the return to the pier is not sufficient to defeat 

jurisdiction. When Respondent got the vessel MARY M IV underway with the Postal Angler 

Club passengers as agreed on May 28, 2015, jurisdiction was established. Once the bell 

signaling the attachment of jurisdiction rang it cannot be “unrung” by Respondent’s 

subsequent actions. Therefore, the Court finds Respondent was acting under the authority of 

his Coast Guard credentials as the Master of the small passenger vessel MARY M IV on May 

28, 2015, and jurisdiction is PROVEN. See 46 C.F.R. § 5.57(a).
9

B. Burden of Proof

The purpose of Coast Guard suspension and revocation proceedings is to promote 

safety at sea. See 46 U.S.C. § 7701. To assist in this goal, Coast Guard Administrative Law 

Judges have the authority to suspend or revoke mariner credentials if a mariner commits 

certain violations. See 46 U.S.C. § 7703. Under Coast Guard procedural rules and 

regulations, the Coast Guard bears the burden of proof and shall prove any violation by a 

preponderance of the evidence. See 33 C.F.R. §§ 20.701-702; see also Appeal Decision 

2485 (YATES) (1989). “The term substantial evidence is synonymous with preponderance 

of the evidence as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.” Appeal Decision 2477 (TOMBARI)

(1988). See also Steadman v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 U.S. 91, 107 

(1981). The burden of proving a fact by a preponderance of the evidence “simply requires 

the Trier of fact ‘to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence 

before [he] may find in favor of the party who has the burden to persuade the [judge] of the 

fact’s existence.’” Concrete Pipe & Products of California, Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension

Trust for S. California, 622 (1993) (citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 371-72 (1970) 

(Harlan, J., concurring) (brackets in original)). 

C. Allegation of Misconduct

In this case, the Coast Guard seeks to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, 

Respondent committed an act of Misconduct by operating his vessel for a fishing voyage 

with passengers for hire without a valid Certificate of Inspection as required by 46 C.F.R. § 

176.100(a).

Misconduct is defined in 46 C.F.R. § 5.27 as, “human behavior which violates 

some formal, duly established rule. Such rules are found in, among other places, statutes, 
10

regulations, the common law, the general maritime law, a ships regulation, or order, or 

shipping articles and similar sources. It is an act which is forbidden or a failure to do that 

which is required.” Id. In order to prove Misconduct the Coast Guard must prove, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, (1) that Respondent is a holder of a merchant mariner 

credential, document or license; (2) Respondent was acting under the authority of his 

credentials when the charged violation occurred; and (3) Respondent, as Master of the 

vessel MARY M IV, committed the specific act or acts of misconduct listed in Charge 1 

(operating small passenger vessel without a valid Certificate of Inspection).

1. Charge 1

Respondent admitted he is the holder of MMC #000293659. The Coast Guard 

notified Respondent of the requirement to obtain a new Certificate of Inspection because 

of the change in ownership of the MARY M IV. (CG Ex. 02 and 03). The testimony and 

record indicate the Coast Guard inspected the vessel and notified Respondent, as master 

and owner of the MARY M IV, of deficiencies requiring correction before issuance of a 

new Certificate of Inspection. (Tr. at 21-26, 35-47, CG Ex. 04). Title 33 C.F.R. § 

176.100(a) provides that a vessel to which it applies may not be operated without a valid 

Certificate of Inspection. The testimony of LCDR Cowan, Inspector Elks and MK2 

Sparanga established that the vessel MARY M IV was a small passenger vessel that had 

been inspected, but not yet issued a new valid Certificate of Inspection before the fishing 

voyage of May 28, 2015. Respondent has not disputed that fact. 
11

The Coast Guard asserts the violation is proven because Respondent operated the 

vessel MARY M IV as a small passenger vessel on May 28, 2015, after accepting 

payment from at least one passenger for hire.2

Respondent contends he did not accept the $960.00 payment for the May 28, 

2015, voyage from Mr. Henderson, therefore the Coast Guard lacks jurisdiction because 

he did not operate the MARY M IV as a small passenger vessel with passengers for hire 

on that date.

Mr. Henderson testified about having had a previous fishing trip with Respondent 

and that he scheduled a trip for his Anglers Club with Respondent and sent a $200.00 

check for a deposit for the scheduled trip. (Tr. at 71-79). There is no dispute the vessel 

got underway on May 28, 2015, with sixteen (16) passengers and conducted a fishing 

trip. If acceptance of the $200.00 deposit from Mr. Henderson, or the initial acceptance 

of a $960.00 check from Mr. Henderson constitutes payment by a passenger for hire, then 

the charged violation is proven.

Respondent testified he returned the $960.00 check to Mr. Henderson and did not 

receive payment for taking the sixteen 16 passengers fishing. Respondent acknowledged 

that he did not return the $200.00 deposit for the trip provided by Mr. Henderson in 

April, but contended that in keeping with industry practice deposits for fishing trips are 

not refundable. 

The Coast Guard asserts that: (1) Respondent accepted the deposit of $200.00 to 

operate the vessel for a fishing trip; and (2) that he initially received and accepted the 

additional $960.00 from the passengers. The Coast Guard contends returning the funds 

 

2

See 46 U.S.C. § 2101(35).
12

because of the expectation of a Coast Guard inspection cannot eliminate either 

jurisdiction or the act of misconduct. I find the evidence shows Respondent accepted the 

$200.00 deposit and operated the vessel MARY M IV for a fishing voyage for hire on 

May 28, 2015. Respondent’s actions in returning the $960.00 check to Mr. Henderson in 

an attempt to avoid Coast Guard enforcement action is insufficient to eliminate 

jurisdiction. Once Respondent got the vessel underway on May 28, 2015, with the 

passengers, pursuant to the agreement reached with Mr. Henderson of the Postal Anglers 

Club, he had executed the contract and took the passengers fishing on his vessel for hire. 

The $200.00 became part of the payment for the fishing voyage at that point. Whether 

retention of the deposit is industry standard or not, it cannot change the fact of getting 

underway on a voyage based on the agreement reached in accepting the deposit. 

Moreover, industry standards cannot circumvent the intent of the law and regulations to 

support safety at sea. See 46 U.S.C. §§ 7701-7704; 46 C.F.R. § 5.5; cf. The T. J. Hooper, 

60 F.2d 737, 1932 A.M.C. 1169 (2d Cir. 1932). I find that once Respondent got the 

vessel underway on May 28, 2015 the deposit payment of $200.00 then constituted 

accepting payment by at least one passenger for hire. I also find that accepting the 

$960.00 check from Mr. Henderson also constituted acceptance of payment for taking 

passengers for hire and returning the check did not void his initial acceptance. Therefore, 

based on the evidence in the record as a whole, the Court finds Charge 1 Misconduct 

PROVEN. 

IV. ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Respondent and the subject matter of this hearing are properly within the 

jurisdiction of the Coast Guard and the ALJ in accordance with 46 U.S.C. §§ 

7703-7704, 46 C.F.R. Part 5, and 33 C.F.R. Part 20. 
13

2. Title 46 C.F.R. Subchapter T requires vessels under 150 gross tons carrying more 

than six passengers, and at least one for hire, to have on board a valid Certificate 

of Inspection when operating as a small passenger vessel. 46 C.F.R. §175.110; 46 

C.F.R. §176.100.

3. Respondent accepted a deposit payment of $200.00 in April 2015 from Mr. 

Henderson on behalf of his Anglers club to operate his vessel the MARY M IV 

for a fishing trip with passengers for hire.

4. The vessel MARY M IV did not have a valid Certificate of Inspection on May 28, 

2015.

5. Respondent operated the vessel MARY M IV on May 28, 2015, with passengers 

for hire for the fishing trip arranged by Mr. Henderson. 

6. Respondent initially accepted a payment of $960.00 from Mr. Henderson for 

taking passengers fishing on May 28, 2015.

7. Respondent returned the check to Mr. Henderson before arriving at the pier where 

Coast Guard personnel were waiting to board and inspect his vessel. 

8. Respondent’s action of accepting a $200.00 deposit and initially accepting a 

$960.00 check for the balance of payment for the fishing trip on May 28, 2015, is 

sufficient evidence that Respondent operated his vessel with at least one 

passenger for hire on May 28, 2015.

9. Therefore, the allegations in Charge 1 “Misconduct” are found PROVEN by a 

preponderance of the reliable and credible evidence including CG Ex. 02, 08, 09 

and 10 and the testimony in the record considered as a whole.

V. SANCTION

These proceedings are remedial, not penal in nature, and “are intended to help 

maintain standards for competence and conduct essential to the promotion of safety at 

sea.” 46 C.F.R. § 5.5; Appeal Decision 2294 (TITTONIS) (1983). If a charge is proven, 

sanctions are to be determined based on the concerns of safety at sea and pursuant to the 

regulations. 

In this case, the Coast Guard seeks three (3) months outright suspension based on 

the charged offense and surrounding circumstances. The Coast Guard’s Post Hearing 
14

Brief also seeks a delay in the effective date of the sanction to May 1, 2016, to coincide 

with the timeframe in which Respondent was operating the voyage in question during 

2015. There are no special circumstances presented by the Coast Guard to support such 

an action in relation to imposition of a sanction. As noted above, the purpose of Coast 

Guard suspension and revocation proceedings is to promote safety at sea. See 46 U.S.C. 

§ 7701. To assist in this goal, Coast Guard Administrative Law Judges have the authority 

to suspend or revoke mariner credentials if a mariner commits certain violations. See 46 

U.S.C. § 7703. Additionally, these proceedings are intended to be remedial and not penal 

in nature. See 46 C.F.R. 5.5. The request to defer the sanction until May during fishing 

season creates an appearance of seeking more of a punitive sanction and is denied. 

Based on a review of the evidence in the record as a whole, the Court determined 

the Charges were proven by a preponderance of the evidence. All of the evidence 

presented regarding the charge is also relevant and considered with regard to determining 

a sanction pursuant to 46 C.F.R. § 5.569. The parties may also present matters that 

support either aggravation or mitigation. Title 33 C.F.R. Part 20, Subpart M 

(Supplementary Evidentiary Rules) provides guidance on what may properly be 

presented as evidence in aggravation or mitigation. 

The Coast Guard proposed a sanction of outright suspension for three (3) months 

and requested it not commence until May 2016. The question of determining a sanction, 

including aggravation and mitigation is addressed as follows.

The Coast Guard did not expressly argue aggravating circumstances in this 

matter, however, the Court finds Respondent’s attempt to evade responsibility to be a 

proper matter of aggravation. Although Respondent attempted to evade responsibility he 
15

also has no previously documented infractions over long service as a mariner. His 

argument regarding frustration of having to wait for marine inspectors to return and clear 

deficiencies during the fishing season does not excuse non-compliance with regulations 

designed to ensure the safety of passengers.

The record shows Respondent is an experienced mariner and has no previous 

record of any suspension and revocation violations. Respondent’s previous good record 

is considered as a matter in mitigation.

The applicable guidance for the violations in this matter from the suggested range 

of orders contained in 46 C.F.R. Part 5 (Table 5.569) would be 1-3 months of suspension 

for misconduct by failure to comply with U.S. law or regulation.

It is within the duties of the ALJ to order any of a variety of sanctions. See 46 

C.F.R. § 5.569; see also Appeal Decision 2569 (TAYLOR) (1995); Appeal Decision 

2680 (MCCARTY) (2006). However, the undersigned is not bound by 46 C.F.R. § 5.569 

or the average order table. See Appeal Decision 2578 (CALLAHAN) (1996); Appeal 

Decision 2475 (BOURDO) (1988). Consideration of mitigating or aggravating factors 

and evidence may justify a lower or higher sanction than the range suggested in the 

suggested range of an appropriate order table. See 46 C.F.R. § 5.569(d). Respondent’s 

contention that he was somehow unaware of the requirement to have a valid Certificate of 

Inspection is not persuasive. He is bound to know the law and regulations as a licensed 

mariner. Respondent’s actions in returning the check to Mr. Henderson support a 

finding of knowledge of the regulations concerning passengers for hire and that he was in 

violation of the regulations. 
16

The aggravating circumstance of attempting to evade responsibility may be 

considered in applying the general guidance in the appropriate order Table contained in 

46 C.F.R. § 5.569. Although the suggested range of sanctions is merely guidance and 

exceeding the range of sanctions may be appropriate if supported by sufficient 

aggravation, I find that the upper end of the suggested range is a sufficient sanction in 

this matter in view of Respondent’s previous good record. In view of the record as a 

whole, including all of the testimony and exhibits admitted at the hearing, the evidence 

establishes that in keeping with the interests of maritime safety as provided in 46 C.F.R. § 

5.5, the appropriate sanction in this matter is that Respondent’s mariner credentials shall 

be SUSPENDED OUTRIGHT for a period of three (3) months.

VI. ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that factual allegation 1 of the Amended Complaint is 

changed to read: “1. On May 28, 2015, the MARY M IV O/N 615080 was a small passenger 

vessel.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Merchant Mariner’s Credential and all other 

credentials issued by the U.S. Coast Guard to Saverio Francis Rescigno, Jr. are 

SUSPENDED OUTRIGHT FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) MONTHS.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, Respondent must immediately surrender his 

Merchant Mariner Credential and any other Coast Guard issued credentials to the Coast 

Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, 1 Washington Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19147-

4395. The period of suspension will not commence until Respondent deposits his credentials 

with the Coast Guard. If you knowingly continue to use your credentials during a period of 

outright suspension, you may be subject to criminal prosecution. 
17

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that service of this Decision on the parties and/or parties’ 

representative(s) serves as notice of appeal rights set forth in 33 C.F.R. § 20.1001 – 20.1004. 

(Attachment B).

__________________________________________________

Michael J Devine

US Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge

Date: 

January 12, 2016
18

ATTACHMENT A

WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LISTS

WITNESS LISTS

COAST GUARD WITNESSES 

CG Witness 1 LCDR Trevor Cowan

CG Witness 2 Jake Elks

CG Witness 3 MK2 Timothy Sparanga

CG Witness 4 Willie Henderson

CG Witness 5 Leonard Brundage

RESPONDENT WITNESS 

 Resp’s Witness 1 Saverio Rescigno 
19

EXHIBIT LIST

COAST GUARD EXHIBITS

CG Ex. 01 Copy of Merchant Mariner Information (MMLD) for Respondent’s 

Merchant Mariner Credentials

CG Ex. 02 Deactivation of Certificate of Inspection Letter to Respondent dated 

March 18, 2015

 CG Ex. 03 Certificate of Documentation MARY M IV dated February 5, 2015

CG Ex. 04 CG 835 forms dated April 7, 2015 issued to Respondent by USCG 

Marine Inspector Jake Elks

CG Ex. 05 MARY M IV Certificate of Inspection dated July 7, 2015

CG Ex. 06 U.S. Coast Guard Passenger Statement Form, Willie Henderson

CG Ex. 07 U.S. Coast Guard Passenger Statement form, Leonard Brundage

CG Ex. 08 MARY M IV Brochure

CG Ex. 09 Cleared check print out of check dated April 23, 2015 made out to 

Respondent from the Postal Angler’s fishing club in the amount of 

$200.00 for May 28, 2015 fishing trip.

CG Ex. 10 Copy of check for $960 from Postal Angler’s Club made out to 

Respondent dated May 28, 2015

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

None
20

ATTACHMENT B

NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL RIGHTS

33 CFR 20.1001 General.

(a) Any party may appeal the ALJ's decision by filing a notice of appeal. The 

party shall file the notice with the U. S. Coast Guard Administrative Law 

Judge Docketing Center; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk; Room 412; 40 S. 

Gay Street; Baltimore, MD 21201-4022. The party shall file the notice 30 

days or less after issuance of the decision, and shall serve a copy of it on the 

other party and each interested person.

(b) No party may appeal except on the following issues:

(1) Whether each finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence.

(2) Whether each conclusion of law accords with applicable law, precedent, 

and public policy.

(3) Whether the ALJ abused his or her discretion.

(4) The ALJ's denial of a motion for disqualification.

(c) No interested person may appeal a summary decision except on the issue that 

no hearing was held or that in the issuance of the decision the ALJ did not 

consider evidence that that person would have presented.

(d) The appeal must follow the procedural requirements of this subpart.

33 CFR 20.1002 Records on appeal.

(a) The record of the proceeding constitutes the record for decision on appeal.
21

(b) If the respondent requests a copy of the transcript of the hearing as part of the 

record of proceeding, then, --

(1) If the hearing was recorded at Federal expense, the Coast Guard will 

provide the transcript on payment of the fees prescribed in 49 CFR 

7.45; but,

(2) If the hearing was recorded by a Federal contractor, the contractor will 

provide the transcript on the terms prescribed in 49 CFR 7.45.

33 CFR 20.1003 Procedures for appeal.

(a) Each party appealing the ALJ's decision or ruling shall file an appellate brief 

with the Commandant at the following address: U.S. Coast Guard 

Administrative Law Judge Docketing Center; Attention: Hearing Docket 

Clerk; Room 412; 40 S. Gay Street; Baltimore, MD 21201-4022, and shall 

serve a copy of the brief on every other party.

(1) The appellate brief must set forth the appellant's specific objections to 

the decision or ruling. The brief must set forth, in detail, the --

(i) Basis for the appeal;

(ii) Reasons supporting the appeal; and

(iii) Relief requested in the appeal.

(2) When the appellant relies on material contained in the record, the 

appellate brief must specifically refer to the pertinent parts of the 

record.

(3) The appellate brief must reach the Docketing Center 60 days or less 

after service of the ALJ's decision. Unless filed within this time, or 
22

within another time period authorized in writing by the Docketing 

Center, the brief will be untimely.

(b) Any party may file a reply brief with the Docketing Center 35 days or less 

after service of the appellate brief. Each such party shall serve a copy on every 

other party. If the party filing the reply brief relies on evidence contained in 

the record for the appeal, that brief must specifically refer to the pertinent 

parts of the record.

(c) No party may file more than one appellate brief or reply brief, unless --

(1) The party has petitioned the Commandant in writing; and

(2) The Commandant has granted leave to file an added brief, in which event 

the Commandant will allow a reasonable time for the party to file that 

brief.

(d) The Commandant may accept an amicus curiae brief from any person in an 

appeal of an ALJ's decision.

33 CFR 20.1004 Decisions on appeal.

(a) The Commandant shall review the record on appeal to determine whether the 

ALJ committed error in the proceedings, and whether the Commandant should 

affirm, modify, or reverse the ALJ's decision or should remand the case for 

further proceedings.

(b) The Commandant shall issue a decision on every appeal in writing and shall 

serve a copy of the decision on each party and interested person.