UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant

vs. 

DENNIS LYNN BLAKE II 

Respondent

_________________________________ 

Docket Number 2017-0058 

Enforcement Activity No. 5735256

DECISION AND ORDER 

Issued: March 19, 2019 

By Administrative Law Judge: Honorable Dean C. Metry 

Appearances: 

LT Kristin D. Kam, Mr. David Barnes, & LT Israel J. Parker 

Sector Jacksonville 

Andrew J. Norris, Esq. 

Suspension and Revocation National Center of Expertise 

For the Coast Guard 

Jonathan Michael Rowe, Esq. 

For the Respondent 
The United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) initiated this Suspension and Revocation 

proceeding seeking revocation of Dennis Lynn Blake II’s (Respondent) Merchant Mariner 

Credential (MMC) Number 000142522. This action is brought pursuant to the authority 

contained in 46 U.S.C. § 7703 and its underlying regulations codified at 46 C.F.R. Part 5 and 33 

C.F.R. Part 20. 

The Coast Guard issued a Complaint against Respondent on March 3, 2017, and 

subsequently filed an Amended Complaint on March 8, 2017.1 The Amended Complaint 

charges Respondent with one count of misconduct pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 7703(1)(B) and one 

count of violation of law or regulation pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 7703(1)(A). Specifically, the 

Amended Complaint alleges that on February 27, 2017, Respondent had possession of a loaded 

40 caliber handgun aboard a documented vessel without previously obtaining the permission of 

the owner or master of the vessel. The Amended Complaint asserts Respondent’s actions 

constitute misconduct because they violate Respondent’s employer’s company policy. Further, 

the Amended Complaint asserts Respondent’s actions are a violation of law because they violate 

18 U.S.C. § 2277’s prohibition against carrying a dangerous weapon on board a documented 

vessel without the permission of the vessel’s master or owner. On May 5, 2017, Respondent 

filed an Answer admitting all jurisdictional allegations and denying all factual allegations in the 

Amended Complaint. 

The undersigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing in this matter from June 

13, 2018 to June 14, 2018, in Jacksonville, Florida.2 The hearing was conducted in accordance 

with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as amended and codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, 

 

1

 The Coast Guard amended the Complaint to correct the statutory authority cited, amend the jurisdictional 

allegations, and modify some of the factual allegations for clarity. The Amended Complaint does not contain any 

additional charges not included in the original Complaint. 

2

 The hearing in this matter was initially scheduled for September 13, 2017. Pursuant to the agreement of both 

parties, the hearing was continued to February 21, 2018, due to Respondent’s counsel’s personal family health 

issues. Additionally, pursuant to the agreement of both parties, the hearing was further continued to June 13, 2018, 

due to Respondent’s counsel’s health issues. 
and Coast Guard procedural regulations set forth in 46 C.F.R. Part 5 and 33 C.F.R. Part 20. 

Andrew J. Norris, Esq., and Lieutenant Kristin D. Kam represented the Coast Guard; Jonathan 

M. Rowe, Esq., appeared on behalf of Respondent. At the hearing, the Coast Guard presented 

the testimony of four (4) witnesses and had eleven (11) exhibits admitted into the record. 

Respondent presented the testimony of one (1) witness. Additionally, he offered twenty-four 

(24) exhibits and had twenty-one (21) exhibits admitted into the record.3 The list of witnesses 

and exhibits is contained in Attachment A. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, Respondent and the Coast Guard agreed by stipulation 

that Respondent violated his employer’s company policy and 18 U.S.C. § 2277 by possessing a 

40 caliber handgun while on board the ISLA BELLA. Tr. Vol. II at 116-118. Therefore, the 

undersigned found the allegations in the Amended Complaint PROVED by stipulation and 

ordered Respondent to turn his MMC over to the Coast Guard. Tr. Vol. II at 116-129.4 The 

undersigned permitted the parties to file post hearing briefs regarding the proper sanction. On 

October 12, 2018, both parties filed post hearing briefs.5 

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

statutes, regulations, and case law, the undersigned finds the Coast Guard PROVED by 

stipulation one count of misconduct pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 7703(1)(B) and one count of 

violation of law or regulation pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 7703(1)(A). Accordingly, for the reasons 

discussed below, Respondent’s MMC is SUSPENDED OUTRIGHT FOR 12 MONTHS. 

 

3

 R Ex. 2, 3, and 4 were not admitted on the ground they were not relevant to the proceeding. Tr. Vol. 2 at 25. 

4

 The undersigned stated the allegations in the “Complaint” were proved. However, when he made this statement, 

he meant the allegations in the Amended Complaint were proved. 

5

 At the conclusion of the hearing, the undersigned ordered the parties to submit post hearing briefs within 30 days 

of receiving the hearing transcript. Tr. Vol. 2 at 118-119. Pursuant to the agreement of both parties, the deadline 

was extended to October 12, 2018. 
FINDINGS OF FACT 

The following are aggravating and mitigating findings of fact used in determining the 

proper sanction. These findings of fact are based on a thorough and careful analysis of the 

documentary evidence, testimony of witnesses, and the entire record taken as a whole: 

1. Respondent has been in the maritime industry for 14 years, including 8 years sailing 

ships. (Tr. Vol. II at 31). 

2. On February 21, 2017, Respondent was assigned to the ISLA BELLA. (Tr. Vol I at 117; 

Tr. Vol. II at 61). 

3. Respondent had to pack and leave the same day as his assignment to the ISLA BELLA. 

(Tr. Vol. II at 61). 

4. On February 21, 2017, Respondent was in the process of packing to move into a new 

home and had an infant child. (Tr. Vol. II at 61-65, 79-80). 

5. At all relevant times herein, Respondent possessed a concealed firearm license. (R Ex. 

1). 

6. On February 27, 2017, Respondent possessed a loaded 40 caliber handgun while on 

board the ISLA BELLA. (Tr. Vol. I at 83-84, 148; Tr. Vol. II at 34; R Ex. 1).6

7. On February 27, 2017, Respondent did not have permission from the ISLA BELLA’s 

master or owner to possess a handgun while on board the vessel. (Tr. Vol. I at 148). 

8. The ISLA BELLA uses Liquefied Natural Gas to power its engine and two main 

generators. (Tr. Vol. I at 144).7

9. Liquefied Natural Gas can explode if ignited. (Tr. Vol. I at 145). 

10. The discharge from a 40 caliber handgun can ignite Liquefied Natural Gas. (Tr. Vol. I at 

148). 

11. On February 27, 2017, Respondent possessed a bottle of urine for the purpose of helping 

crewmembers defeat drug tests. (CG Ex. 9; Tr. Vol. II at 56-57). 

 

6

 The parties stipulated Respondent possessed a 40 caliber handgun while on board the ISLA BELLA. Based on a 

review of the record, the undersigned finds the gun was loaded. Tr. Vol. I at 58, 83-84. 

7

 In addition to being propelled by Liquefied Natural Gas, the ISLA BELLA is also propelled by diesel fuel. Tr. 

Vol. I at 154. 
12. On September 19, 2017, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the criminal charge of 

introduction of a firearm onto seaport property brought against him in Duval County, 

Florida Circuit Court. (CG Ex. 12).

DISCUSSION 

The purpose of Coast Guard Suspension and Revocation proceedings is to promote safety 

at sea. 46 U.S.C. § 7701(a). In furtherance of this goal, ALJs have the authority to suspend or 

revoke a mariner’s license, certificate, or document for violations arising under 46 U.S.C. § 

7703. In this case, the Coast Guard alleges Respondent committed misconduct by violating Tote 

Services Inc.’s Drug, Alcohol, and Contraband Policy (Contraband Policy). The Coast Guard 

asserts Respondent violated the Contraband Policy by possessing a 40 caliber handgun while on 

board the ISLA BELLA, a vessel operated by Tote Services Inc. Furthermore, the Coast Guard 

also alleges Respondent violated 18 U.S.C. § 2277 by possessing a 40 caliber handgun while on 

board the ISLA BELLA without the permission of the vessel’s owner or master. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties stipulated Respondent violated the 

Contraband Policy by possessing a 40 caliber handgun while on board the ISLA BELLA. The 

parties also stipulated Respondent violated 18 U.S.C. § 2277 by possessing a 40 caliber handgun 

while on board the ISLA BELLA. Based on these stipulations, the undersigned found the Coast 

Guard proved the allegations of misconduct and violation of law contained in the Amended 

Complaint. 

SANCTION 

Having found the Coast Guard's allegations proved, the undersigned must now issue an 

appropriate sanction. 33 C.F.R. § 20.902(a)(2). The Coast Guard asserts revocation is the 

appropriate sanction. Contrarily, Respondent argues suspension followed by probation is the 

proper sanction. 
The appropriate sanction for a particular offense is dependent on the type and 

circumstances of the offense. See 46 C.F.R. § 5.569. Statutes, regulations and decisions on 

appeal mandate a particular sanction for certain offenses, whereas other offenses give the ALJ 

discretion in crafting the appropriate sanction. Id. Where the sanction is discretionary, an ALJ 

may consider the following factors in determining an appropriate sanction: (1) remedial actions 

which have been undertaken independently by Respondent; (2) the prior record of Respondent, 

considering the period of time between prior acts and the act or offense for which presently 

charged is relevant; and (3) evidence of mitigation or aggravation. See 46 C.F.R. § 5.569(b). 

Title 46 C.F.R. § 5.569 includes a Table entitled “Suggested Range of an Appropriate 

Order,” which “is for the information and guidance of Administrative Law Judges and is 

intended to promote uniformity in orders rendered.” 46 C.F.R. § 5.569(d). However, ALJs are 

not bound by the Table. See Appeal Decision 2628 (VILAS) (citing Appeal Decision 2362 

(ARNOLD) and Appeal Decision 2173 (PIERCE)). The Commandant has stated that “[i]n the 

absence of a gross departure from the Table of Recommended Awards, the order of the ALJ will 

not be disturbed on review.” Appeal Decision 2628 (VILAS) (citing Appeal Decision 1937 

(BISHOP)). 

In this case, the undersigned has discretion to determine the proper sanction for both of 

Respondent’s violations. The Table states a 1-3 month suspension is the appropriate sanction for 

Respondent’s violation of law. The Table is silent as to a sanction for Respondent’s act of 

misconduct. However, Respondent’s act of misconduct is most closely related to the offense of 

failing to obey a master’s written instruction. For this offense, the Table states a 2-4 month 

suspension is appropriate. 

In addition to the sanctions suggested by the Table, the undersigned shall also consider 

all aggravating and mitigating factors. Here, in addition to the charges found proved, the Coast 

Guard demonstrated Respondent possessed a bottle of urine for the purpose of helping crew 
members defeat drug tests. CG Ex. 9; Tr. Vol. II at 56-57. The undersigned finds this is a 

significant aggravating factor because Respondent’s use of this urine has the potential to greatly 

increase the threat to safety at sea by enabling a crewmember using drugs to circumvent a drug 

test. Additionally, the Coast Guard established Respondent brought a loaded 40 caliber handgun 

onto a vessel with a significant risk of explosion if a firearm is discharged because it is propelled 

by Liquefied Natural Gas. Tr. Vol. I at 144-148. The undersigned finds this is an aggravating 

factor because of the significant risk to safety at sea created by bringing a loaded gun onto such a 

vessel. 

Further, on September 19, 2017, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the criminal charge 

of introduction of a firearm onto seaport property brought against him in the Duval County, 

Florida Circuit Court. CG Ex. 12. However, this offense was based on the same facts that 

formed the basis of the charges in the Amended Complaint. CG Ex. 7, 12; Tr. Vol. 1 at 196-199. 

Since this criminal case arose from the same facts as the charges in the Amended Complaint, the 

undersigned does not consider the plea of nolo contendere to be a prior offense or aggravating 

factor. 

In mitigation, Respondent demonstrated he has been in the maritime industry for 14 

years, including 8 years sailing ships, and there is no indication he has committed any prior 

offenses other than the plea of nolo contendere discussed supra. CG Ex. 12; Tr. Vol. II at 2-4, 

31. The undersigned considers this a significant mitigating factor because Respondent served as 

a mariner for a substantial period of time without any incidents other than those at issue in this 

case. 

Respondent asserts he should receive a mitigated sanction because he did not know he 

had the 40 caliber handgun with him when he boarded the vessel. Respondent established he has 

a concealed firearm license and that he packed his belongings under rushed and hectic 

circumstances. R Ex. 1. Respondent was rushed due to the fact his assignment on the ISLA 
BELLA was a “pier head jump,” which meant he had to pack and leave the same day he was 

offered a job on the ISLA BELLA. Tr. Vol. II at 61. Additionally, Respondent was in the 

process of packing to move into a new home and had a newborn baby, which created a hectic 

situation at his home while he packed his belongings to bring on the ISLA BELLA. Tr. Vol. II at 

61-65, 79-80. Respondent asserts these circumstances led him to inadvertently pack his 

belongings in a bag that already had his 40 caliber handgun inside of it and that he then brought 

the bag onto the ISLA BELLA without knowing he was in possession of the gun. However, 

despite the circumstances surrounding Respondent’s packing, the undersigned finds Respondent 

failed to demonstrate he was unaware he possessed the gun when he boarded the vessel. 

Respondent also asserts he should receive a mitigated sanction because he submitted to a 

drug test one day before the hearing, and the test result was negative. See Attachment A to 

Respondent’s Post Hearing Brief. Assuming the drug test was conducted in a reliable manner, 

its negative result reflects positively on Respondent. Nevertheless, the undersigned does not 

consider this to be a mitigating factor because the charges in this case do not revolve around drug 

use. Accordingly, taking into account all the facts and circumstances of this case, the 

undersigned finds 12 MONTHS’ OUTRIGHT SUSPENSION is the appropriate sanction. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the allegations in the Amended Complaint are found 

PROVED. 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, Merchant Mariner Credential 000142522 and 

all other Coast Guard licenses, certificates and documents issued to Respondent, Dennis Lynn 

Blake II, are hereby SUSPENDED OUTRIGHT FOR 12 MONTHS. 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, the 12 month suspension shall be considered 

to have commenced on June 14, 2018, the date Respondent surrendered his MMC to the Coast 

Guard. See 46 C.F.R. § 5.567. 
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, service of this Decision and Order on the parties serves as 

notice of appeal rights set forth in 33 C.F.R. § 20.1001–20.1004, a copy of which can be found in 

Attachment B. 

SO ORDERED. 

__________________________________________________ 

Dean C. Metry 

U.S. Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge

Date: 

March 19, 2019
ATTACHMENT A 

WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST 

WITNESS LIST 

COAST GUARD’S WITNESSES 

1. Jonathan Tyler 

2. Darin Witte 

3. Raymond Thompson 

4. William Hill Chaires 

RESPONDENT’S WITNESSES 

1. Dennis Lynn Blake II (Respondent) 

EXHIBIT LIST 

COAST GUARD’S EXHIBITS 

CG Ex. 1 Tote Services Notice of TSI Policies 

CG Ex. 2 Crew Bag Check Sheet 

CG Ex. 3 Master’s Statement 

CG Ex. 4 Chief Mate’s Statement 

CG Ex. 5 CBP Officer’s Statement 

CG Ex. 6 CBP Custody Receipt 

CG Ex. 7 Police Arrest Report 

CG Ex. 8 Photograph 

CG Ex. 9 Bottle of Liquid and Hand Warmer 

CG Ex. 10 Home Drug Test Kit 

CG Ex. 11 Tote ISPS Policy (not offered or admitted) 

CG Ex. 12 Conviction Record 

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS 

R Ex. 1 Concealed Weapon License 

R Ex. 2 Drug Test Document (not admitted) 

R Ex. 3 Drug Test Document (not admitted) 

R Ex. 4 Drug Test Document (not admitted) 

R Ex. 5 Non-DOT Alcohol Testing Form 

R Ex. 6 Letter 

R Ex. 7 Letter 

R Ex. 8 Letter 

R Ex. 9 Letter 

R Ex. 10 Letter 

R Ex. 11 Letter 

R Ex. 12 Letter 

R Ex. 13 Letter 
R Ex. 14 Letter 

R Ex. 15 Letter 

R Ex. 16 Letter 

R Ex. 17 Letter 

R Ex. 18 Letter 

R Ex. 19 Letter 

R Ex. 20 Letter 

R Ex. 21 Letter 

R Ex. 22 Letter 

R Ex. 23 Letter 

R Ex. 24 Letter