UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_______________________________ 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant, 

vs. 

MARQUIS DICKENS, 

Respondent. 

______________________________ 

Docket Number 2021-0237 

Enforcement Activity No. 7184679 

DECISION AND ORDER

Issued: September 16, 2022 

By Administrative Law Judge: Honorable Michael J. Devine 

Appearances:

LCDR JUSTIN R. JOLLEY, ESQ.

LCDR LARS T. OKMARK, ESQ.

LT AARON M. LEE

Mariner Credentialing Fraud Task Force

For the Coast Guard 

SEAN PRIBYL, ESQ.

Holland & Knight, LLP 

For Respondent
2 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ..................................................................................................... 3

II. FINDINGS OF FACT........................................................................................................... 4

III. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................... 9

A. Jurisdiction....................................................................................................................... 10

B. Burden and Standard of Proof ......................................................................................... 11

C. The Coast Guard Proved Respondent Committed Misconduct Pursuant to 46 C.F.R. 5.27

12

1. Charges 1, 2, 3, and 7 - Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 .............................................. 14

a. The Coast Guard Presented Substantial Evidence of Falsity of Course Completion

Certificates and Respondent’s Actual or Constructive Knowledge of Falsity ................... 15

1) Charge 1 – October 18, 2016 Application .............................................................. 16

2) Charge 2 – August 17, 2018 Application................................................................ 20

3) Charges 3 and 7 – July 30, 2019 and May 26, 2020 Applications ......................... 21

b. Respondent’s Claim of Lack of Knowledge of Falsity of Course Completion

Certificates Is Not Credible ................................................................................................ 22

1) Respondent’s Contentions Regarding Actual or Constructive Knowledge Are Not

Credible ........................................................................................................................... 24

2) Respondent’s Argument that Charges Should Be Dismissed Because the Coast

Guard Did Not Discover the MAMA Fraud Scheme Sooner Is Not Supported by Facts or

Law 29

2. Charges 4, 5, and 6 – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2197 ................................................. 30

IV. SANCTION ........................................................................................................................ 33

ORDER ......................................................................................................................................... 36
3 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) initiated this administrative action seeking 

revocation of Marquis Dickens’ (Respondent) Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC). This action 

is brought pursuant to the authority contained in 46 U.S.C. § 7703(1)(B) and its underlying 

regulations codified at 46 C.F.R. Part 5 and 33 C.F.R. Part 20. 

The Coast Guard filed a Complaint on April 28, 2021, alleging three charges of 

misconduct for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false/fictitious/fraudulent statement), and three 

charges of misconduct for violating of 18 U.S.C. § 2197 (misuse of federal 

certificate/license/document). The charges stem from alleged use of fraudulent course 

completion certificates in applications for MMC endorsements. 

Respondent requested, and was granted, an extension of time to file an Answer, and on 

June 19, 2021, Respondent filed his Answer. Respondent admitted the jurisdictional allegations 

of the Complaint, denied the factual allegations, and asserted the affirmative defenses of failure 

to state a claim and contributory negligence. 

The Coast Guard filed an Amended Complaint on September 15, 2021, adding a seventh 

charge alleging Respondent committed misconduct by submitting a fraudulent course completion 

certificate in another application for MMC endorsements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. 

Respondent filed an Amended Answer on September 19, 2021, again admitting the jurisdictional 

allegations but denying the factual allegations of the Amended Complaint. 

On September 24, 2021, the Coast Guard moved for telephonic testimony of four of its 

proposed witnesses, asserting in-person testimony would be unduly burdensome and citing

COVID-19 concerns. Respondent did not object to telephone testimony for three of those 

witnesses, but filed a response opposing the motion as to witness Lamont Godfrey, who was 
4 

incarcerated at the time of the hearing. The Coast Guard argued in-person testimony was unduly 

burdensome because of the risks, logistics, and cost of transporting a prisoner. After several prehearing conferences with the parties to determine the feasibility of presenting Godfrey’s 

testimony through Zoom for Government, the ALJ found that a Zoom for Government 

connection would not work with the Federal Bureau of Prisons facility but a telephone 

connection was available. Considering the purpose of these administrative proceedings and the 

need for a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination, the ALJ granted the Coast Guard’s 

motion to present Mr. Godfrey’s testimony by telephone. See 46 C.F.R. § 5.5; 33 C.F.R. §§ 

20.103 and 20.707. 

The hearing was held on October 27, 2021, in Baltimore, Maryland. At the 

commencement of the hearing, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Fact and Motion to Admit 

Exhibits, stipulating to 15 factual statements, and agreeing to the admissibility of their respective 

exhibits (Coast Guard Exhibits 1 – 23 and Respondent’s Exhibits A – N).

Both parties filed their respective post-hearing briefs on January 10, 2022. The record is 

now closed and the case is ripe for a decision. 

After careful review of the entire record, including witness testimony, documentary 

evidence, applicable statutes, regulations, and case law, I find the Coast Guard PROVED the 

violations alleged in Charges 1 through 4, 6, and 7, and PARTIALLY PROVED the violation 

alleged in Charge 5. 

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

The following findings of fact are based on a thorough and careful analysis of the 

documentary evidence, testimony of witnesses, and entire record. 

1. Respondent Marquis Percell Dickens is a credentialed merchant mariner holding 

both domestic officer and domestic rating endorsements. [Ex. ALJ-I at No. 1]. 
5 

2. Respondent has held a Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC) continuously since June 

28, 2011. [Ex. ALJ-I at No. 2]. 

3. Between June 28, 2011, and June 28, 2016, Respondent held MMC No. 000112265. 

[Ex. ALJ-I at No. 3]. 

4. Between June 29, 2016, and October 1, 2018, Respondent held MMC No. 

. [Ex. ALJ-I at No. 4]. 

5. On October 18, 2016, Respondent submitted an application to the National Maritime 

Center (NMC) seeking endorsements for Vessel Personnel with Designated Security 

Duties (VPDSD) and Security Awareness. [Ex. ALJ-I at No. 5]. 

6. At the time of the submission of the October 18, 2016 application, Edison Chouest 

Offshore (Edison Chouest) employed Respondent as an Able Seaman (AB). [Tr. at 

197]. 

7. In order to maintain his employment with Edison Chouest as an AB, Respondent 

needed to demonstrate completion of the VPDSD course by January 1, 2017, per the 

Coast Guard’s requirement to comply with the Manilla Amendment of the 

qualification standards of the International Convention on Standards of Training, 

Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW). [Tr. at 57-58, 197]. 

8. Respondent’s October 18, 2016 MMC application contained a course completion 

certificate from Military Sealift Command that was no longer accepted by the Coast 

Guard as proof of qualification for VPDSD. As a result, NMC sent Respondent a 

deficiency letter dated November 16, 2016, informing Respondent he needed to 

submit other documentation. [Tr. at 58-61; Ex. CG-009 at 9; Exs. CG-010, CG-011]. 

9. After receiving the letter from NMC, Respondent arranged for a course completion 

certificate to be submitted from Mid-Atlantic Maritime Academy (MAMA) for a 

VPDSD course, with a course completion date of June 1, 2016. [Tr. at 62-66; Ex. 

CG-009 at 8]. 

10. Respondent obtained the VPDSD course completion certificate from Lamont 

Godfrey, then the Chief Administrator at MAMA, without taking the VPDSD 

course. [Tr. at 128, 224-225]. 

11. Respondent did not enroll in or pay for the VPDSD course at MAMA in June of 

2016. [Tr. at 170-173; Ex. CG-016; Ex. CG-017; Ex. CG-022]. 

12. Respondent paid Mr. Godfrey in cash for the VPDSD course completion certificate, 

in an amount less than the cost to enroll in the MAMA VPDSD course. [Tr. at 133-

134, 228]. 
6 

13. MAMA uses a certificate numbering process for course completion certificates that 

produces a unique certificate number for each student and course, and the certificate 

numbers are never duplicated or reused. [Tr. at 173-176]. 

14. The certificate number on Respondent’s VPDSD certificate was supposed to be 

issued to an individual, not Respondent, who signed up to take the course on June 

15, 2016. [Tr. at 174; Ex. CG-017 at 2]. 

15. On December 2, 2016, Respondent received endorsements to MMC No. 

for VPDSD and Security Awareness. [Ex. CG-002 at 7-8; Ex. ALJ-I at No. 4]. 

16. After obtaining the VPDSD endorsement, Respondent continued to work for Edison 

Chouest in the position of AB until February 21, 2019. [Tr. at 197-199; Ex. CG023]. 

17. In accordance with Coast Guard requirements, Edison Chouest required all of its 

mariners to renew their STCW qualifications, which included completion of a Basic 

Safety Training Refresher course, every five years. [Tr. at 197-198]. 

18. Edison Chouest required Mates to demonstrate completion of Basic Safety Training 

Refresher, Leadership and Managerial Skills, and Automatic Radar Plotting Aid

(ARPA) courses. [Tr. at 199]. 

19. On August 17, 2018, Respondent submitted an application to NMC seeking STCW 

renewal and endorsements for Officer in Charge of a Navigational Watch without 

Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) and ARPA limitations. 

[Ex. ALJ-I at No. 7; Ex. CG-013; Tr. at 75]. 

20. In support of his August 17, 2018 application, Respondent submitted course 

completion certificates from MAMA for Basic Safety Training Refresher dated 

August 16, 2018, Leadership and Managerial Skills dated May 25, 2018, and ARPA 

dated April 12, 2018. [Ex. CG-013 at 22-24]. 

21. Respondent did not enroll in or pay for courses at MAMA for Basic Safety Training 

Refresher, Leadership and Managerial Skills, or ARPA for the course dates indicated 

on the certificates. [Tr. at 170-176; Exs. CG-016, CG-018, CG-019, CG-020]. 

22. Respondent obtained the Basic Safety Training Refresher, Leadership and 

Managerial Skills, and ARPA course completion certificates from Mr. Godfrey

without attending the courses. [Tr. at 230-232]. 

23. Respondent paid Mr. Godfrey in cash for the Basic Safety Training Refresher, 

Leadership and Managerial Skills, and ARPA course completion certificates, in an 

amount less than the cost to enroll in the courses at MAMA. [Tr. at 133-134, 248-

249]. 

8 

35. On October 8, 2019, Respondent received endorsements to MMC No. for 

Advanced Oil Tanker Cargo Operation, Advanced Chemical Tanker Cargo 

Operation, and Tankerman—PIC (Barge). [Ex. CG-004 at 3-5; Ex. ALJ-I at No. 10]. 

36. On May 26, 2020, Respondent submitted an application to NMC seeking a raise in 

grade endorsement from Tankerman—PIC (Barge) to Tankerman—PIC. [Ex. CG015 at 18-19; Ex. ALJ-I at No. 13]. 

37. In support of his May 26, 2020 application, Respondent submitted the same course 

completion certificate from MAMA for Tankship – Dangerous Liquids dated July 

26, 2019, that he submitted with his July 30, 2019 application. [Ex. CG-015 at 49]. 

38. Between approximately July 2016 and December 2019, Mr. Godfrey, along with a 

number of co-conspirators, participated in a scheme at MAMA to create and sell 

counterfeit and fraudulent MMC course completion certificates. [Ex. R-C at Paras. 

1, 8; Tr. at 144-146].

39. MAMA is located in Norfolk, Virginia, and is a private maritime training center 

offering mariners over 100 U.S. Coast Guard-approved deck and engineering 

courses. Mr. Godfrey was employed by MAMA as the school’s Chief 

Administrator. As Chief Administrator, Lamont Godfrey created and printed 

MAMA training certificates and had access to the school’s certifying stamp and 

official seals. [Ex. R-C at Para. 7]. 

40. Mr. Godfrey and his co-conspirators recruited merchant mariners who desired to 

obtain various Coast Guard-approved MMCs. Godfrey and his co-conspirators 

offered to provide authentic-looking, but counterfeit and fraudulent, MAMA course 

certificates to mariners without the mariners actually attending the class as required 

to obtain an endorsement or credential. In exchange, the mariners paid Mr. Godfrey 

and his co-conspirators a discounted amount from the actual cost of attending the 

MAMA course. [Ex. R-C at Para. 8]. 

41. Mr. Godfrey and his co-conspirators created at least 1,000 counterfeit and fraudulent 

certificates for at least 250 mariners and were paid at least $200,000 for creating 

these counterfeit and fraudulent certificates. [Ex. R-C at Para. 12]. 

42. Mr. Godfrey pled guilty in a federal criminal case to mail fraud, wire fraud, and 

identity theft in connection with the MAMA fraud scheme. [Tr. at 127-156; Exs. RA, R-B, R-C, R-D]. 

43. As part of his plea agreement, Mr. Godfrey agreed to cooperate fully and truthfully 

with the United States, including testifying truthfully and completely before any 

grand juries and at any trials or other proceedings. [Ex. R-B at Para. 8].

44. Also as part of the plea agreement, the United States and Mr. Godfrey agreed that the 

United States reserved the right to seek a downward departure from the sentencing 
9 

guidelines or a reduction of sentence if the United States determined that such a 

downward departure or sentence reduction was appropriate. [Ex. R-B at Para. 12]. 

45. Respondent currently holds MMC No. , which was issued by NMC on 

December 14, 2020, and expires on December 14, 2025. Respondent has held this 

MMC since its date of issue and has held it at all times relevant to this administrative 

proceeding. [Ex. ALJ-I at No. 15]. 

III. DISCUSSION

The purpose of Coast Guard suspension and revocation (S&R) proceedings is to promote 

safety at sea. 46 U.S.C. § 7701(a). The Commandant of the Coast Guard “delegated to 

Administrative Law Judges the authority to admonish, suspend with or without probation, or 

revoke a license, certificate or document issued to a person by the Coast Guard under any 

navigation or shipping law.”1 46 C.F.R. § 5.19. Administrative actions against a mariner’s 

credentials “are remedial and not penal in nature” and are intended to help maintain standards for 

competence and conduct essential for safety at sea. 46 C.F.R. § 5.5. 

The Coast Guard may seek revocation of an MMC if the holder, while acting under the 

authority of the credential, has committed an act of misconduct. 46 U.S.C. § 7703(l)(B). The 

Coast Guard defines misconduct as behavior that violates some formal, duly established rule, 

which may be found in, among other places, statutes, regulations, the common law, general 

maritime law, a ship’s regulation or order, or shipping articles. 46 C.F.R. § 5.27. 

Here, the Coast Guard seeks revocation of Respondent’s MMC based on allegations that 

Respondent committed misconduct by violating 18 U.S.C. § 10012 and 18 U.S.C. § 21973 in 

 

1 The Coast Guard now refers to licenses, certificates of registry, and documents as credentials. 74 Fed. Reg. 11216, 

11196 (March 16, 2009). 

2 18 U.S.C. § 1001: 

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the 

executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— 

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
10 

connection with Respondent’s submission of four applications for MMC ratings or 

endorsements. As set forth below, I find the Coast Guard PROVED the violations alleged in 

Charges 1 through 4, 6, and 7 of the Amended Complaint, and PARTIALLY PROVED the 

violation alleged in Charge 5. Before turning to the specific charges, I first address jurisdiction 

in this case.

A. Jurisdiction

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

the case are decided. Appeal Decision 2620 (COX) (2001). For actions based on charges of 

misconduct, the Coast Guard must establish the mariner was acting under the authority of his or 

her credential when the misconduct occurred. 46 U.S.C. § 7703(1)(B). A mariner acts under the 

authority of his or her credential when 1) employed in the service of a vessel and the holding of 

the credential is required by law, regulation, or the employer’s conditions; or 2) engaging in 

official matters regarding the credential, such as applying for renewal, taking examinations for 

endorsements, or requesting duplicate or replacement credentials. 46 C.F.R. § 5.57. 

In this case, Respondent admitted in his Answer and Amended Answer to the 

jurisdictional allegations, and additionally, the parties stipulated to facts establishing that 

Respondent acted under the authority of his MMC when he submitted certain certificates of 

 

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially 

false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or 

domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter 

relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of 

imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

3 18 U.S.C. § 2197:

Whoever, not being lawfully entitled thereto, uses, exhibits, or attempts to use or exhibit, or, with intent 

unlawfully to use the same, receives or possesses any certificate, license, or document issued to vessels, or 

officers or seamen by any officer or employee of the United States authorized by law to issue the same;

... 

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
11 

course completion with applications for MMC endorsements. [Ex. ALJ-I at Nos. 1-15]. 

Therefore, I find I have jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter.

B. Burden and Standard of Proof 

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, applies to Coast Guard 

S&R hearings before United States ALJs. 46 U.S.C. § 7702(a). The APA authorizes sanctions 

if, upon consideration of the entire record as a whole, the charges are supported by reliable, 

probative, and substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 556(d). “The term ‘substantial evidence’ is 

synonymous with preponderance of the evidence as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.” 

Appeal Decision 2477 (TOMBARI) (1988) at *3; see also Steadman v. Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 450 U.S. 91, 107 (1981). Under Coast Guard procedural rules and regulations, the 

burden of proof is on the Coast Guard to prove the charges are supported by a preponderance of 

the evidence. 33 C.F.R. §§ 20.701, 20.702(a).

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 and Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension 

Trust for Southern California, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 

371-72 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring) (brackets in original)). Therefore, the Coast Guard must 

prove by credible, reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that Respondent more likely than 

not committed the charged violation. 

Misconduct is human behavior that violates some formal, duly established rule. 46 

C.F.R. § 5.27. Such rules are found in, among other places, statutes, regulations, the common 

law, the general maritime law, a ship's regulation or order, shipping articles, and similar sources. 
12 

Id. Furthermore, misconduct is an act which is forbidden or a failure to do that which is 

required. Id. A charge of misconduct may be based on an allegation of violation of a criminal 

statute. While the charges may be based on criminal activity, that does not raise the evidentiary 

standard. The specifications must be proved, but not to the evidentiary standard necessary for a 

criminal conviction. Appeal Decision 2570 (HARRIS) (1995); Appeal Decision 2346 

(WILLIAMS) (1984). The less stringent “substantial evidence” standard, as discussed above, 

applies. 46 U.S.C. § 7702(a); 46 C.F.R. § 5.5; 33 C.F.R. § 20.701; Appeal Decision 2254 

(YOUNG) (1981); Appeal Decision 2430 (BARNHART) (1986). 

C. The Coast Guard Proved Respondent Committed Misconduct Pursuant to 46 C.F.R. 

5.27 

The Coast Guard’s charges (Charges 1 through 7 of the Amended Complaint) are based 

on four applications for MMC ratings or endorsements, dated October 18, 2016, August 17, 

2018, July 30, 2019, and May 26, 2020. The Coast Guard alleges Respondent knowingly 

included fraudulent course completion certificates in his applications, thereby obtaining MMC 

endorsements or ratings to which he was not entitled. 

Columns 1 and 2 of the table, below, list the allegedly fraudulent course completion 

certificates included with the MMC applications at issue in Charges 1 through 3 and 7. Column 

3 lists the endorsements/ratings mentioned by the Coast Guard in Charges 4 through 6. 

(1) Application 

Date

(2) Course Completion 

Certificate

(3) Endorsement/Rating 

October 18, 2016

[Ex. CG-009 at 7] 

Vessel Personnel with 

Designated Security Duties

[Ex. CG-009 at 8; Ex. CG-017] 

Vessel Personnel with Designated 

Security Duties

Security Awareness

[Ex. CG-002 at 7-8]
13 

August 17, 2018

[Ex. CG-013 at 13] 

Basic Safety Training Refresher

[Ex. CG-013 at 22; Ex. CG-020] 

Leadership and Managerial 

Skills

[Ex. CG-013 at 23; Ex. CG-019] 

Automatic Radar Plotting Aids

(ARPA)

[Ex. CG-013 at 24; Ex. CG-018] 

Officer in Charge of a 

Navigational Watch

Vessel Personnel with Designated 

Security Duties 

Security Awareness 

Rating Forming Part of a 

Navigational Watch 

Able Seafarer – Deck

Proficiency in Survival Craft 

Advanced Firefighting

Medical First Aid Provider

Basic Training

[Ex. CG-003 at 1-2]

July 30, 2019

[Ex. CG-014 at 11] 

Tankship Dangerous Liquids

[Ex. CG-014 at 35; Ex. CG-021] 

Advanced Oil Tanker Cargo 

Operation

Advanced Chemical Tanker Cargo 

Operation

[Ex. CG-004 at 4] 

Tankerman-PIC (Barge)

[Ex. CG-004 at 5]

May 26, 2020

[Ex. CG-015 at 19] 

Tankship Dangerous Liquids

[Ex. CG-015 at 49; Ex. CG-021] 

N/A

After careful review of the record, including witness testimony and exhibits admitted into 

evidence, and after consideration of the law governing this matter found in the regulations, 

statutes, and caselaw, I find the Coast Guard PROVED the charges of misconduct in Charges 1 

through 4, 6, and 7, and PARTIALLY PROVED the charge of misconduct in Charge 5. 
14 

1. Charges 1, 2, 3, and 7 - Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 

In Charges 1, 2, 3, and 7 of the Amended Complaint, the Coast Guard alleges Respondent 

committed misconduct by submitting fraudulent course completion certificates in applications 

for MMC endorsements or ratings, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which prohibits a person 

from knowingly and willfully using “any false writing or document knowing the same to contain 

any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.” 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3).

The Coast Guard has used violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 as an appropriate source of a 

“formal, duly established rule.” See 46 C.F.R. § 5.27; Appeal Decision 2610 (BENNETT) 

(1999). Charges that allege a respondent submitted MMC applications for endorsements, 

ratings, renewal, etc., with knowingly false statements are valid bases for misconduct charges in 

S&R proceedings. See Appeal Decision 2569 (TAYLOR) (1995); Appeal Decision 2570 

(HARRIS) (1995); Appeal Decision 2724 (EDENSTROM) (2020).4 

To prove a mariner submitted an application fraudulently, the Coast Guard must show the 

mariner had actual or constructive knowledge of the falsity of the statement(s) within the 

application. Appeal Decision 2724 (EDENSTROM) at fn 6. A person has constructive 

knowledge if he or she had reason to know the representation was false. Appeal Decision 809 

 

4 In Appeal Decision 2569 (TAYLOR) (1995), the mariner applied for a duplicate license and answered “no” to a 

question asking if the mariner had been convicted of any crimes including DWIs, despite the mariner having been 

convicted of DWI 15 times prior to submitting the application. Appeal Decision 2569 at *1. The ALJ determined, 

and the Commandant affirmed, the mariner’s knowingly false statement constituted a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 

and thus, amounted to misconduct. Id. In Appeal Decision 2570 (HARRIS) (1995), the Commandant affirmed the 

ALJ’s finding that the mariner knowingly lied when he stated on his license application that he had never used or 

been addicted to narcotics, and that this fraudulent representation constituted a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. 

Appeal Decision 2570 at *2. In Appeal Decision 2724 (EDENSTROM) (2020), the Commandant affirmed the 

ALJ’s finding that the mariner knowingly submitted an MMC application containing false statements in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 1001, by answering “no” to a question on the Merchant Mariner Medical Evaluation Report despite 

having been diagnosed and treated for several of the listed medical conditions.

16 

endorsements Respondent needed to maintain his employment, and as to the training that Edison 

Chouest provided to its employees, including Respondent. [Tr. at 189-215]. 

1) Charge 1 – October 18, 2016 Application 

Ms. testified that Respondent submitted an application on or about October 

18, 2016, seeking endorsements for Vessel Personnel with Designated Security Duties (VPDSD)

and Security Awareness. [Ex. CG-009 at 3, 5-7 (Form CG-719B)]. NMC initially rejected 

Respondent’s application because it contained only a certificate from Military Sealift Command 

(MSC) for “Security Watch Member Basic,” and NMC no longer accepted that MSC certificate 

as proof of qualification for VPDSD. [Tr. at 58-61; Ex. CG-009 at 9]. NMC notified Respondent 

by letter dated November 16, 2016, that he would need to submit a certificate or letter signed by 

a company official or a certificate of completion from a U.S. Coast Guard accepted or approved 

course, within 90 days, or his application would be denied. [Tr. at 58; Exs. CG-010, CG-011]. 

After receiving the letter from NMC, Respondent submitted a course completion 

certificate from MAMA for VPDSD, with a course completion date of June 1, 2016. [Tr. at 62-

66; Ex. CG-009 at 8].

5

 Respondent admitted he obtained the VPDSD course completion 

certificate from Lamont Godfrey after receiving the letter from NMC, without taking the VPDSD 

course. [Tr. at 224-225]. 

 testified regarding MAMA’s records of courses, student enrollment, and 

issuance of certificates of course completion. [Tr. at 159-186]. Prior to June of 2016, 

Respondent had taken two courses at MAMA and received certificates of completion for them—

 

5 During Ms. testimony, Respondent’s counsel raised the argument that the Coast Guard had not 

established Respondent was the individual who personally transmitted the VPDSD certificate to NMC. [Tr. at 65-

66]. Ms. testified that the certificate was faxed to NMC by someone at MAMA. [Tr. at 66]. Whether it 

was Respondent or a MAMA employee who faxed the VPDSD certificate, there is no dispute here that Respondent 

caused each of the applications to be transmitted to NMC for evaluation. Respondent’s own testimony shows that 

he voluntarily completed the applications, including procuring the allegedly fraudulent course completion 

certificates, and submitted them, or gave permission for someone to submit them, to NMC. [Tr. at 224-234].
17 

Visual Communications (Flashing Lights) and Terrestrial & Coastal Navigation (Operational). 

[Tr. at 164; Ex. CG-016 at 3; Ex. CG-022]. Ms. located records of Respondent’s 

enrollment, payment, and examination results for these courses. [Ex. CG-016]. 

Respondent’s transcript showed he did not enroll in the VPDSD course at MAMA in 

June of 2016, there is no record Respondent paid for enrollment in that course in June of 2016, 

and records show only one individual was enrolled in VPDSD on June 1, 2016—an individual 

who was not Respondent. [Tr. at 170-173; Ex. CG-016; Ex. CG-017; Ex. CG-022]. Further, the 

certificate number on Respondent’s VPDSD certificate was supposed to have been issued to an 

individual, not Respondent, who signed up to take the course on June 15, 2016, but never 

attended the course. [Tr. at 174; Ex. CG-017 at 2]. 

Lamont Godfrey testified he was the Chief Administrator at MAMA from 2013 to 2020. 

[Tr. at 128]. Mr. Godfrey acknowledged he was currently in federal prison as a result of 

convictions for crimes related to a fraud scheme he and others perpetrated at MAMA involving 

the sale of fraudulent course completion certificates. [Tr. at 137-140; Exs. R-A, R-B, R-C, R-D]. 

Mr. Godfrey estimated he sold fraudulent certificates to between 75 and 100 mariners over the 

course of several years. [Tr. at 136]. 

Mr. Godfrey stated he knew Respondent as a student at MAMA around 2016 or 2017, 

and he generally recalled selling illegitimate course completions certificates to Respondent, but 

he could not recall the specific course completion certificates he provided to Respondent or the 

specific endorsements/ratings Respondent was seeking. [Tr. at 131-133, 146-148]. He testified 

to his memory that Respondent “needed help...to finish out his package because I believe that he 

was missing one class...for his endorsement for unlimited oceans, and I think that’s what it was 

about, I don’t know for sure, but I think that’s what is was...” [Tr. at 132-133].
18 

Mr. Godfrey testified generally to the process he followed for providing fraudulent 

MAMA course completion certificates to mariners. He explained he required the mariners to 

provide their full names and dates of sea service, so that the certificate would not have an issuedate during a time period when the mariner was at sea, so as not to make it obvious that the 

certificate was not legitimate. [Tr. at 133-135]. Additionally, Mr. Godfrey testified he only 

accepted payment in cash, at a location away from the school, for less money than the course 

would cost. Id. 

On cross-examination, Mr. Godfrey admitted he did not recall explicitly telling

Respondent he was selling fraudulent course completion certificates. [Tr. at 152]. When asked 

by the Coast Guard if he believed Respondent understood the course completion certificates 

were not legitimate, Mr. Godfrey answered in the affirmative, stating Respondent had to know 

the course completion certificates were not legitimate because Respondent was obtaining the 

certificates without attending the course, and Respondent had previously attended courses at 

MAMA and knew the legitimate process for obtaining certificates. [Tr. at 135]. 

 Training and Licensing Manager for Edison Chouest, testified 

Respondent began his employment as an Ordinary Seaman, but advanced to Able Seaman in 

January of 2015. [Tr. at 197; Ex. CG-007]. Mr. explained that in order for 

Respondent to maintain his employment as an Able Seaman, he needed to demonstrate 

completion of the VPDSD course by January 1, 2017, per the Coast Guard’s requirement to meet 

the Manilla Amendment for qualification standards of the International Convention on Standards 

of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW).6

 [Tr. at 197]. 

 

6 Coast Guard regulations incorporate the STCW by reference for various mariner training requirements. See 46 

C.F.R. §§ 10.103, 10.107, 11.102.
19 

Charge 1 of the Amended Complaint includes an allegation of an aggravating 

circumstance. Specifically, it alleges Respondent’s actions in regard to his October 18, 2016 

application for MMC endorsements caused interference with government officials in the 

performance of their official duties. See 46 C.F.R. § 5.61(a)(10). The regulations provide for 

time limitations for bringing an action against a mariner's credential for various types of 

violations. For dangerous drug charges the period is 10 years. 46 C.F.R. § 5.55(a)(1). For an 

act or offense not otherwise provided for the limitation period is 3 years. 46 C.F.R. § 5.55(a)(3), 

and for a misconduct offense specified in 46 C.F.R. § 5.59(a) or 46 C.F.R. § 5.61(a), the 

limitation period is 5 years. 46 C.F.R. § 5.55(a)(2). The Coast Guard filed this action on April 

28, 2021, more than three years, but less than five years, from the date of Respondent’s 

submission of the October 18, 2016 MMC application. Although there was no motion practice 

regarding this issue, I find the evidence demonstrates that Respondent’s submission of fraudulent 

course completion certificates in applications for merchant mariner credentials to deceive 

reviewing officials is an act sufficient to constitute interference with government officials in the 

performance of their duties within the meaning of 46 C.F.R. § 5.61(a)(10). Although a 

Commandant Decision on Appeal from 1999 found that just submitting an application containing 

a false statement was not considered sufficient to be interference with government officials, the 

decision also left open the issue of whether affirmative actions connected to “express written 

falsification” could constitute interference with government officials. Appeal Decision 2608 

(SHEPHERD) (1999) at *1. I find the affirmative and deceptive nature of Respondent’s actions 

in this matter by submitting fraudulent or counterfeit certificates to prevent discovery of the fact 

that he had not taken required maritime training courses appropriately fits within the purpose of 

46 C.F.R. 5.61(a)(10). Additionally, because the truth of the information provided by a mariner 

21 

I find the affirmative and deceptive nature of Respondent’s actions in this matter by 

submitting fraudulent or counterfeit certificates to prevent discovery of the fact that he had not 

taken required maritime training courses is misconduct under 46 C.F.R. 5.27. 

3) Charges 3 and 7 – July 30, 2019 and May 26, 2020 Applications 

Ms. testified as to Respondent’s submission to NMC of applications dated 

July 30, 2019 and May 26, 2020. [Tr. at 81-90; Ex. CG-014 at 11, CG-015 at 19]. Both

applications included a course completion certificate from MAMA for Tankship Dangerous 

Liquids dated July 26, 2019. [Ex. CG-014 at 35; Ex. CG-015 at 49]. 

Ms. testified that Respondent’s transcript showed he did not attend the Tankship 

Dangerous Liquids course in July 2019, there was no record Respondent had paid for enrollment 

in that course, and the certificate number on the certificate was not legitimate. [Tr. at 170-176; 

Exs. CG-016, CG-021]. 

Respondent admitted he obtained the course completion certificate from Mr. Godfrey 

without attending the course. [Tr. at 233]. 

As discussed in more detail in the section above regarding Charge 1, Mr. Godfrey 

testified he provided Respondent the course completion certificate in exchange for a cash 

payment that was less than the cost of enrollment in the course. [Tr. 131-135]. 

Mr. testified that with the completion of a certain amount of sea service 

involving the handling of dangerous liquids and a Tankship Dangerous Liquids course, 

Respondent would have been qualified to server as a Tankerman with Edison Chouest. [Tr. at 

200-202; Ex. CG-014 at 16-34]. 
22 

I find the affirmative and deceptive nature of Respondent’s actions in this matter by 

submitting fraudulent or counterfeit certificates to prevent discovery of the fact that he had not 

taken required maritime training courses is misconduct under 46 C.F.R. 5.27

b. Respondent’s Claim of Lack of Knowledge of Falsity of Course 

Completion Certificates Is Not Credible

Respondent took the stand and testified in response to the Coast Guard’s evidence. [Tr. 

at 217-257]. Generally, Respondent claimed that Lamont Godfrey led him to believe there was 

nothing fraudulent about the manner in which he obtained the course completion certificates

without actually having attended the courses at MAMA. 

Respondent testified he took other courses at MAMA prior to obtaining the course 

completion certificates that are mentioned in Charges 1 through 7. [Tr. at 219-223, 226]. For at 

least one of the courses (Terrestrial Navigation), Respondent attended classes for three weeks 

before taking an exam to obtain the course completion certificate. [Tr. at 221-223]. Respondent 

paid for enrollment in the course by credit card. [Tr. at 228]. For another class (Flashing 

Lights), Respondent stated he did not attend a class at MAMA, but only sat for an exam and 

passed it, in order to obtain the certificate. [Tr. at 226]. 

Respondent testified he viewed Mr. Godfrey as a high level administrator at MAMA and 

trusted the information provided by Mr. Godfrey regarding MMC applications. [Tr. at 220-224]. 

Respondent first addressed the allegation in Charge 1 regarding the course completion 

certificate for VPDSD. [Tr. at 224]. Respondent admitted initially submitting the October 18, 

2016 application with the “Security Watch Member Basic” certificate from MSC, and then 

receiving a letter from NMC notifying him the MSC certificate was not sufficient to obtain the 

VPDSD endorsement. [Tr. at 224]. After receiving the November 16, 2016 letter from NMC 

rejecting the MSC certificate, Respondent testified that he approached Mr. Godfrey to ask about 
23 

enrolling in MAMA’s VPDSD course. [Tr. at 224]. Respondent testified that Mr. Godfrey told 

him that instead of attending the VPDSD class, he could take a test in order to obtain the course 

completion certificate. [Tr. at 224-225]. Respondent admitted the certificate he received had a 

course completion date of June 1, 2016, and claimed that Mr. Godfrey informed him the 

certificate was only to document the hours he was supposed to be in the course. [Tr. at 251-252]. 

The certificate for VPDSD was submitted to the Coast Guard in November 2016. [Tr. at 65]. 

Regarding Charge 2, which relates to the August 17, 2018 application, Respondent 

testified he spoke to Mr. Godfrey about course completion certificates for Basic Safety Training 

Refresher, Leadership and Managerial Skills, and ARPA. [Tr. at 230-232]. Respondent stated 

that Mr. Godfrey asked him questions about the position he held in the chain of command, 

whether he was using radar on ships, and how much sea time he had accrued. [Tr. at 230-232]. 

Respondent claimed Mr. Godfrey then told him he could obtain all of these certificates without 

attending the classes, as long as he could pass the exams for the courses, or, in the case of Basic 

Safety Training Refresher, his sea time alone qualified him for the certificate. [Tr. at 230-232, 

253]. 

Regarding Charges 3 and 7, which relate to applications dated July 30, 2019, and May 

26, 2020, which both included the same course completion certificate for Tankship Dangerous 

Liquids, Respondent stated he approached Mr. Godfrey about obtaining the tankerman 

endorsement and claimed Mr. Godfrey told Respondent he could obtain the course completion 

certificate without attending the class if he passed a test. [Tr. at 234]. Respondent testified he 

believed what Mr. Godfrey told him regarding obtaining the course completion certificates was 

correct and true, and asserted that he did not know the course completion certificates he obtained 

and submitted with his applications were fraudulent. [Tr. at 236-237]. 
24 

Regarding all of the course completion certificates mentioned in Charges 1, 2, 3, and 7, 

Respondent testified that Mr. Godfrey told him he could pay by credit card or cash, but that Mr. 

Godfrey encouraged him to pay in cash to avoid a three percent additional fee. [Tr. at 228]. 

Respondent stated he paid Mr. Godfrey in cash for all of the course completion certificates. [Tr. 

at 228]. On cross-examination, Respondent stated he received paper receipts from Mr. Godfrey 

for those payments, but when asked about the receipts at the hearing, he stated he did not have 

them. [Tr. at 247-249]. Respondent also testified that Mr. Godfrey had administered all of the 

tests. [Tr. at 254]. On cross-examination, Respondent conceded he had no records of any of the 

alleged test results. [Tr. at 253-254]. 

1) Respondent’s Contentions Regarding Actual or Constructive 

Knowledge Are Not Credible

In his post-hearing brief, Respondent cites to Appeal Decision 2724 (EDENSTROM) 

(2020) in support of his argument that Respondent did not “knowingly” submit fraudulent course 

completion certificates with his applications for endorsements and upgrade of his credentials. 

[Resp. Brief at 12-15]. As discussed above, the Commandant in EDENSTROM held that a 

mariner must have actual or constructive knowledge of the falsity of the statement in order to 

have violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Appeal Decision 2724 (EDENSTROM) at fn 6. A person has 

constructive knowledge if he or she had reason to know the representation was false. Appeal 

Decision 809 (MARQUES) (1955) at *2. A person has the equivalent of actual knowledge if he 

or she makes a representation without belief in its truth or in reckless disregard of its truth or 

falsity. Id. Therefore, the proper focus for addressing Respondent’s argument is to examine

whether he had reason to know the course completion certificates were illegitimate, or whether 

he exercised a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the certificates when he included them 

in his applications. 
25 

For Respondent’s argument to be successful, I would have to find his alleged belief in 

Lamont Godfrey’s authority to provide course completion certificates for classes Mr. Godfrey 

did not teach and that Respondent had not attended to be credible. There is no dispute that Mr. 

Godfrey and others engaged in a conspiracy to sell fraudulent course completion certificates to 

mariners and that Mr. Godfrey has been convicted of federal offenses for that scheme and is 

incarcerated. Respondent’s defense essentially argues that Respondent was duped by Mr. 

Godfrey and actually believed obtaining course completion certificates for courses he did not 

attend was somehow not fraudulent. 

Respondent’s contention that he did not “know” the operation was fraudulent is simply 

not credible. Respondent highlights in his closing argument brief that during cross-examination 

Mr. Godfrey conceded he did not explicitly tell Respondent he was selling fraudulent course 

completion certifications. [Tr. at 152]. However, it is hardly surprising that a person engaged in 

criminal conduct would not make specific statements that what he was doing was fraudulent or 

that he would not have records of all of his criminal sales of fraudulent certificates. 

Respondent’s argument that he did not know the certificates were fraudulent is not supported by 

the facts.

First, the evidence shows that prior to his submission of the October 18, 2016 MMC 

application, Respondent had completed training and had submitted other applications to obtain 

and hold an MMC since 2011. [Tr. at 38-54; Exs. CG-001, CG-006, CG-007, CG-008]. 

Respondent was an experienced mariner. Respondent testified that he previously took other 

courses at MAMA and obtained legitimate certificates. [Tr. at 219-223, 226]. For at least one of 

the courses (Terrestrial Navigation), Respondent testified he paid for enrollment by credit card, 

attended classes for three weeks, and took an exam to obtain the course completion certificate. 
26 

[Tr. at 221-223, 228]. For another class (Flashing Lights), Respondent stated he did not attend a 

class at MAMA, but sat for an exam and passed it, in order to obtain the certificate. [Tr. at 226]. 

While the scheme for providing certificates to mariners who had not attended the classes 

was created by Mr. Godfrey and his co-conspirators, and Respondent has never been accused of 

being a co-conspirator, Respondent was not a novice. He has been a credentialed mariner since 

2011 and knew the Coast Guard was the approval authority. [Tr. at 245, 255]. Respondent 

obtained the course completion certificates from Mr. Godfrey knowing he had not attended the 

courses. [Tr. at 224-225, 230-233]. This is at odds with the manner in which Respondent 

obtained course completion certificates in the past. To obtain his Able Seaman and Proficiency 

in Survival Craft course completion certificates, Respondent had to attend classes at Edison 

Chouest and then pass an exam. [Tr. at 194-196; Ex. CG-007 at 22-23]. To obtain his course 

completion certificate for Terrestrial Navigation, Respondent attended classes at MAMA and 

then took and passed an exam. [Tr. at 164; Ex. CG-016 at 3; Ex. CG-022]. 

With regard to the course completion certificate for VPDSD in particular, Respondent 

knew he needed additional proof of completing proper training after receiving the November 16, 

2016 letter from NMC notifying him that his MSC certificate was insufficient. [Tr. at 58; Exs. 

CG-010, CG-011]. His employer would not have allowed him to continue serving as an Able 

Seaman unless he produced proof of completion of the VPDSD course by January 1, 2017. [Tr. 

at 197]. Therefore, there was an impending deadline for Respondent to obtain the VPDSD 

course completion certificate. 

Further, the certificate for VPDSD showed a course completion date of June 1, 2016. 

[Ex. CG-009 at 8; Ex. CG-017]. Even if Respondent had completed an exam administered by 

Mr. Godfrey in lieu of taking the course, as he claimed, Respondent would have done that in 
27 

November 2016 at the earliest, because he did not approach Mr. Godfrey regarding VPDSD until 

after receiving the November 16, 2016 letter from NMC. [Tr. at 224]. Respondent conceded it 

was incongruous that his VPDSD certificate contained the June 1, 2016 completion date, but he 

testified that Mr. Godfrey assured him it was fine. [Tr. at 251-252]. testified 

that only MAMA instructors were allowed to issue certificates after an individual attended a 

course and successfully completed an exam. [Tr. at 162-163; CG Ex. 16]. In view of 

Respondent’s experience, including having taken legitimate courses previously at MAMA, 

Respondent’s claim of taking examinations on site at MAMA proctored by Mr. Godfrey and 

merely being duped by this elaborate scheme is not credible. 

Mr. Godfrey’s version of the way he interacted with Respondent was markedly different 

than Respondent’s. He testified that for the transactions with Respondent, the only information 

he needed from Respondent was his full name and the dates he was out at sea to make sure the 

certificate he created did not have a date that coincided with Respondent’s sea time. [Tr. at 132-

134]. Mr. Godfrey also testified that to avoid getting caught, the transactions were off-site from 

the school and he only accepted cash. [Tr. at 134-136]. 

For all of the course completion certificates, Mr. Godfrey charged less than the amount 

charged by MAMA for attending the courses at the school. [Tr. at 134-135; Ex. R-C at 3]. 

Mariners who paid Mr. Godfrey and his conspirators for the certificates saved money and time 

by obtaining course completion certificates without attending the courses. [Ex. R-C at 3]. 

Respondent paid cash for the certificates at issue here, even though he paid by credit card for a 

prior MAMA course. [Tr. at 228]. Respondent also claimed he received receipts from Mr. 

Godfrey for his cash payments, to support his contention that he somehow believed Mr. 

Godfrey’s sale of course completion certificates were legitimate transactions, but he did not 
28 

produce any of these receipts at the hearing. [Tr. 247-248]. Respondent’s claim that Godfrey 

provided him receipts for his criminal enterprise is not credible.7 

As noted above, Mr. Godfrey’s practice in the scheme to provide fraudulent course 

completion certificates was to meet offsite and accept only cash. Additionally, Respondent knew 

Mr. Godfrey was an administrator and not an instructor. [Tr. at 220]. It is not credible that 

Respondent believed Mr. Godfrey was in a position to proctor exams, given Respondent’s 

admission on cross-examination that for every other course at MAMA, the exam was proctored 

by an instructor. [Tr. at 254]. I have fully considered the fact of Mr. Godfrey’s conviction in 

weighing his testimony and I observed Respondent directly during his testimony at the hearing. I 

find he knew he had not attended the courses and accepted course certificates which had specific 

dates of attendance for the courses he did not attend. I do not find this claim of taking 

examinations at the school and receiving receipts from Godfrey credible. 

Respondent’s claim of reliance on Mr. Godfrey is inconsistent with Respondent’s

experience (he had been a credentialed mariner since 2011) and he could have contacted the 

Coast Guard to check on any actions that were out of step with the normal MMC application

process. Even if, arguendo, Respondent’s claim that Mr. Godfrey made statements that he could 

obtain completion certificates for courses he did not take were accepted, it is no better than a 

reckless disregard for the truth. Respondent’s claim of ignorance of the falsity of the course 

completion certificates he received from Mr. Godfrey, when he knew Mr. Godfrey was providing 

certificates for dates he did not attend classes, is equivalent to actual knowledge. Appeal 

 

7 The record shows the initial complaint in this matter was served on Respondent on May 7, 2021, and an initial 

answer submitted through counsel on June 19, 2021. There was adequate time for exchange of discovery and 

preparation of matters in defense prior to the hearing that was eventually held on October 27, 2021. The Coast 

Guard provided Ms. Declaration (Ex. CG-016) in discovery well before the hearing, so Respondent was on 

notice that MAMA had no record of payment for the courses noted in the charges. The Coast Guard retains the 

burden of proof in S&R proceedings, and Respondent was under no obligation to produce receipts if they existed. 

See 33 C.F.R. § 20.702.
29 

Decision 2724 (EDENSTROM) at fn 6; Appeal Decision 809 (MARQUES) (1955) at *2; see

also Appeal Decision 2670 (WAIN) (2004). Respondent could also be viewed, due to his 

experience, as having reason to know Mr. Godfrey’s actions and statements were not in keeping 

with legitimate MMC practices, which constitutes constructive knowledge. Id.

Respondent’s argument that Mr. Godfrey abused his position of authority to trick and 

deceive Respondent ignores the fact that the Coast Guard provides resources to mariners for 

submitting MMC applications. The applicant for an MMC or endorsements must establish that 

he or she satisfies the requirements for the MMC or endorsements. See 46 C.F.R. § 10.209(a) 

and 46 C.F.R. Part 10, generally. It is the responsibility of the individual mariner to learn what is 

necessary for MMC credentials and endorsements. [Tr. at 119]. The Coast Guard NMC has 

resources for the public to obtain information on the credentialing process, including checklists 

on its website, a live chat feature on the website, and a call-in hotline. [Tr. at 100-101, 117-119]. 

Moreover, Respondent obtained his original MMC in 2011 on his own without reliance on Mr. 

Godfrey. [Tr. at 255]. 

2) Respondent’s Argument that Charges Should Be Dismissed 

Because the Coast Guard Did Not Discover the MAMA Fraud 

Scheme Sooner Is Not Supported by Facts or Law 

Respondent asserted in his post-hearing brief that the last audit of MAMA was in June 

2015 and the Coast Guard still has not audited MAMA since the fraud scheme was discovered. 

[Resp. Brief at 32]. Respondent’s argument ignores the fact that the Coast Guard has oversight 

and regulatory authority for maritime matters including MMCs, but it remains the responsibility 

of mariners and the private maritime industry to comply with the law and regulations. MAMA is 

a private company subject to regulation. Ship owners are primarily responsible for vessel safety 

and compliance with regulations even though they are subject to Coast Guard inspections. See
30 

e.g., Cassens v. St. Louis River Cruise Lines, Inc., 44 F.3d 508 (7th Cir. 1995). Mariners are 

responsible for complying with the regulations when applying for credentials and endorsements. 

See 46 C.F.R. § 10.209(a) and 46 C.F.R. Part 10, generally. Ignorance of the law is not an 

excuse and individuals do not need to be warned that failure to comply with the law has 

consequences. 

Having discussed Charges 1, 2, 3, and 7 of the Amended Complaint, I now turn to the 

remaining charges.

2. Charges 4, 5, and 6 – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2197 

For Charges 4, 5, and 6, the Coast Guard alleged Respondent committed misconduct by 

using Coast Guard-issued ratings or endorsements to which he was not lawfully entitled, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2197. 

In Charge 4 (based on the allegedly fraudulent course completion certificate mentioned in 

Charge 1), the Coast Guard alleged Respondent received the following endorsements to MMC 

No. 000355835 on December 2, 2016, to which he was not lawfully entitled: VPDSD and 

Security Awareness.8 

In Charge 5 (based on allegedly fraudulent course completion certificates mentioned in 

Charges 1 and 2), the Coast Guard alleged Respondent received the following 

endorsements/ratings to MMC No. on October 1, 2018, to which he was not lawfully 

entitled: VPDSD, Security Awareness, Rating Forming Part of a Navigational Watch, Able 

 

8 Though the Coast Guard issued the endorsements to Respondent on December 2, 2016, more than three years prior 

to the Coast Guard’s filing of the Complaint, Respondent held the MMC (MMC No. through October 1, 

2018, and used the endorsements during that time to work on vessels at Edison Chouest, causing his actions to be a 

continuous violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2197 through October 1, 2018. As the Coast Guard filed the Complaint on 

April 28, 2021, Charge 4 was brought within three years of the commission of the offense. Moreover, as discussed 

in Sec. III.C.1.a(1), I find that Respondent’s actions could constitute interference with a government official in the 

performance of his or her official duties, under 46 C.F.R. § 5.61(a)(10), for which a five-year statute of limitations 

applies. 

32 

Tankship Dangerous Liquids were necessary for Respondent to obtain the endorsements/ratings 

of VPDSD, Security Awareness, Advanced Oil Tanker Cargo Operation, Advanced Chemical 

Tanker Cargo Operation, and Tankerman-PIC (Barge). [Tr. 57-58, 63-67, 81-83, 197-201; Exs. 

CG-002, CG-004, CG-009, CG-014]. I found the Coast Guard proved Respondent knowingly 

included fraudulent course completion certificates from MAMA in his applications to obtain 

those endorsements/ratings. Therefore, the Coast Guard proved that Respondent was not 

lawfully entitled to these endorsements/ratings and violated Title 18 U.S.C. § 2197. 

However, the Coast Guard only partially proved Charge 5 by preponderant evidence. For 

Charge 5, the Coast Guard’s evidence—through the testimony of Ms. the August 17, 

2018 MMC application, and the corresponding October 1, 2018 MMC No. —was 

sufficient to prove Respondent was not lawfully entitled to the ratings/endorsements of Officer in 

Charge of a Navigational Watch with the “ARPA” limitation removed, VPDSD, Security 

Awareness, and Basic Training. [Tr. at 73-80; Exs. CG-003, CG-013]. Ms. 

testimony and the application package demonstrated that the course completion certificates for 

VPDSD, Basic Safety Training Refresher, and ARPA were necessary to obtain those 

endorsements/ratings. However, the Coast Guard’s evidence did not clearly show how those 

certificates were necessary for Respondent to receive Rating Forming Part of a Navigational 

Watch, Able Seafarer – Deck, Proficiency in Survival Craft, Advanced Firefighting, and Medical 

First-Aid Provider, because the evidence showed Respondent had already received those 

endorsements/ratings before submitting the fraudulent course completion certificates. [See Ex. 

CG-002 at 1]. Accordingly, the Coast Guard only partially proved Charge 5 by preponderant 

evidence.
33 

Finally, the Coast Guard proved Respondent used the endorsements/ratings discussed 

above, despite not being lawfully entitled to them. Through the testimony of Mr. and 

evidence of Respondent's sea time, the Coast Guard demonstrated by a preponderance of the 

evidence that Respondent used the unlawfully obtained endorsements/ratings to serve aboard 

vessels at Edison Chouest in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2197 and constituting misconduct under 46 

C.F.R. § 5.27.9 [Tr, at 193-203; Ex. CG-023]. 

IV. SANCTION

S&R proceedings are remedial in nature and their purpose is to help maintain standards 

for competence and conduct essential to the promotion of safety at sea. 46 U.S.C. § 7701(a); 46 

C.F.R. § 5.5. The ALJ has the exclusive authority to impose sanctions at the conclusion of a 

case. Appeal Decision 2362 (ARNOLD) (1984). 

The Coast Guard argues in its post-hearing brief that revocation of Respondent’s current 

credential—MMC No. 000580540 issued on December 14, 2020—is the appropriate sanction in 

this matter. Relying on Appeal Decision 2569 (TAYLOR) (1995), Appeal Decision 2613 

(SLACK) (1999), Appeal Decision 2670 (WAIN) (2007), and Appeal Decision 2346 

(WILLIAMS) (1984), the Coast Guard asserts Respondent’s actions of fraudulently obtaining

and serving under endorsements to which he was not entitled constituted serious misconduct that 

undermined the laws designed to promote maritime safety, and so revocation of the current 

credential is justified. Id. 

Respondent’s primary argument at both the hearing and in his post-hearing brief is that he 

did not commit misconduct because he did not knowingly submit fraudulent course completion 

 

9 Where a charge of misconduct is based on allegations of violation of a criminal statute such as 18 U.S.C. § 2197, 

the standard of proof for these administrative proceedings remains a preponderance of the evidence. See Appeal 

Decision 2346 (WILLIAMS) (1984).
34 

certificates. Respondent further argues in his post-hearing brief that if any sanction is issued, it 

should be limited to an admonishment or to one to three months’ suspension, considering the 

guidance contained in 46 C.F.R. § 5.569. [Resp. Brief at 34]. Respondent also argued the Coast 

Guard failed to prove any aggravating matter. Id. However, as noted above in Section 

III.C.1.a(1), in discussing Charge 1, I found that procuring fraudulent course completion 

certificates for MMC applications to deceive reviewing officials is a sufficient act to constitute 

interference with government officials in the performance of their duties within the meaning of 

46 C.F.R. § 5.61(a)(10). The system relies on accurate submissions by mariners and the 

application requires the mariner to certify what he or she is submitting is truthful, honest, and in 

good faith. [Tr. at 40-41, 97, 116]. Appeal Decision 2670 (WAIN) (2007). I have found 

Respondent was a knowing and willing participant in the submission of fraudulent documents for 

his MMC endorsements and the deceptive nature of these acts with counterfeit certificates made 

the fraud hard to detect. [Tr. 63-67]. 

Except for acts or offenses for which revocation is mandatory, the ALJ may consider 

various factors, including remedial actions taken by a respondent, the prior record of the 

respondent, and evidence of mitigation or aggravation. See 46 C.F.R. § 5.569(b). The 

regulations contain a section indicating that the ALJ is required to enter a sanction of revocation 

for drug use violations. 46 C.F.R. § 5.59. Otherwise, the selection of an appropriate order is the 

responsibility of the ALJ. 46 C.F.R. § 5.569; Appeal Decision 2362 (ARNOLD), supra. 

In WILLIAMS, the mariner was found to have committed misconduct by altering his 

license by typing the term “DEMAC” onto the document, then presenting it to the Coast Guard 

and requesting that a duplicate license be issued to correct his birthdate. Appeal Decision 2346 

at *1. The mariner attempted to obtain an endorsement for Deck Engine Mechanic or Machinist 
35 

by fraud, and was caught before the credential was issued. The ALJ issued an order revoking the 

mariner’s document. On appeal, the Commandant upheld the ALJ’s decision to revoke the 

mariner’s document, but did not do so on grounds that revocation of the mariner’s existing 

document that he attempted to alter was the only appropriate sanction for submitting a fraudulent 

application for an additional endorsement. The Commandant instead found the ALJ’s 

determination to revoke the mariner’s document was appropriate given the seriousness of the 

violation, which could have resulted in the mariner being “placed in a critical position aboard 

ship, although he is, in reality, unqualified.” Appeal Decision 2346 at *4. 

In HARRIS, the ALJ revoked the mariner’s credential after it was proved that the same 

credential had been obtained by fraud (the mariner had knowingly lied in his application 

regarding prior drug use). Appeal Decision 2570 at *2. In TAYLOR, and SLACK, the ALJ 

issued Orders of revocation after it was proved that the mariners made knowingly false 

statements regarding convictions for offenses including DWI in their applications for duplicate 

and renewal credentials, respectively. Appeal Decision 2569 at *1; Appeal Decision 2613 at *1. 

Fraud in the procurement of the duplicate or renewed credential is akin to fraud in the 

procurement of the original credential, because the mariner is seeking to operate under the same 

scope of authority as the original credential. 

These cases are instructive but the distinct facts of each case must be considered in 

determining an appropriate sanction. Here, Respondent obtained endorsements and upgrades to 

his MMC to which he was not entitled by knowingly including fraudulent course completion 

certificates in his applications. The fact that he has no prior violations is considered in 

mitigation. 

37 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, service of this decision and order on the parties 

and/or parties’ representative(s) serves as notice of the appeal rights set forth in 33 C.F.R. 

20.1001 – 20.1004. (See Attachment B).

__________________________________ 

Michael J. Devine

Administrative Law Judge 

United States Coast Guard

Done and dated September 16, 2022 

Baltimore, MD
38 

ATTACHMENT A

Coast Guard’s Witnesses 

1.

2. Lamont Godfrey 

3.

4. Capt. 

Coast Guard’s Exhibits* 

Ex. CG-001: MMC No. issued to Respondent 

Ex. CG-002: MMC No. issued to Respondent 

Ex. CG-003: MMC No. issued to Respondent 

Ex. CG-004: MMC No. issued to Respondent 

Ex. CG-005: MMC No. issued to Respondent 

Ex. CG-006: MMC Application dated June 23, 2011 

Ex. CG-007: MMC Application dated October 30, 2014 

Ex. CG-008: MMC Application dated April 20, 2016 

Ex. CG-009: MMC Application dated October 18, 2016 

Ex. CG-0010: NMC Letter dated November 16, 2016 

Ex. CG-0011: Screenshot from MMDL Database

Ex. CG-0012: MMC Application dated February 26, 2018 

Ex. CG-0013: MMC Application dated August 17, 2018 

Ex. CG-0014: MMC Application dated July 30, 2019 

Ex. CG-0015: MMC Application dated May 26, 2020 

Ex. CG-0016: Declaration of 

Ex. CG-0017: VPDSD Certificate dated June 1, 2016 
39 

Ex. CG-0018: ARPA Certificate dated April 12, 2018 

Ex. CG-0019: L&M Certificate dated May 25, 2018 

Ex. CG-0020: BSTR Certificate dated August 16, 2018 

Ex. CG-0021: TDL Certificate dated July 26, 2019 

Ex. CG-0022: MAMA Student Transcript for Respondent 

Ex. CG-0023: Sea Time Report

Respondent’s Witnesses

1. Marquis Dickens (Respondent) 

2.

Respondent’s Exhibits* 

Ex. R-A: Lamont Godfrey Indictment 

Ex. R-B: Lamont Godfrey Plea Agreement

Ex. R-C: Lamont Godfrey Statement of Facts

Ex. R-D: Government filing re: sentencing factors

Ex. R-E: DOJ press release dated August 16, 2021 

Ex. R-F: 46 C.F.R. Part 10, Subpart D 

Ex. R-G: Site Approval Submittal Checklist

Ex. R-H: CG-MMC Policy Letter dated August 24, 2020 

Ex. R-I: OIG Audit Report on Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation 

Program dated September 30, 1997 

Ex. R-J: OIG Audit Report, Findings, Recommendations dated July 20, 1989 

Ex. R-K: Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular No. 03-14, CH-1 

Ex. R-L: OIG Audit Recommendations to Improve System for Adjudicating S&R 

Matters dated August 2010 

Ex. R-M: Appeal Decision 2724 (EDENSTROM) (2020) 
40 

Ex. R-N: NMC Audit Report of MAMA dated July 8, 2015 

Court’s Exhibits

Ex. ALJ-I: Joint Stipulation of Fact and Motion to Admit Exhibits

Ex. ALJ-II: Subpoena issued by Coast Guard to 

Ex. ALJ-III: Subpoena issued by Coast Guard to 

*All admitted pursuant to Joint Stipulation of Fact and Motion to Admit Exhibits
41 

ATTACHMENT B

Notice of 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 issupported 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.

(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 –
42 

(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 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.