Opinion ID: 200353
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether One of the Defendants was a Mere Passenger

Text: 20 The defendants' final argument is that one of them was a mere passenger who did not possess the purpose required by section 1382. The defendants baldly assert that one of them — they do not specify which — was a passenger who was merely present in the zone, rather than willfully transgressing it. The evidence presented, however, suggested that both inhabitants of the vessel were involved in shouting and waving fists at the Coast Guard. More importantly, the evidence does not reveal any suggestion that either defendant at any time expressed a desire to exit the boat, turn it around, or otherwise leave the security zone. Without more, it is difficult to conceive that the actions of either defendant were not purposeful. 21 For the reasons set forth above, the order of the district court is affirmed.