On March 14, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction towards Matthaios Fafalios, the chief engineer of the Trident Navigator, who was wrongfully charged and convicted in December 2014 of “failing to maintain an oil record book aboard a foreign-flagged merchant sea vessel, in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 1908(a) and 33 C.F.R. § 151.25.”

At the shut of the federal government’s proof at trial, Fafalios, a Greek seafarer, moved for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 on the grounds that the federal government did not show past an affordable doubt that he was the “master or other person in charge” of the vessel and subsequently he was not legally required below the Coast Guard’s laws to keep up the oil file e book.

The District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the movement for judgment of acquittal, and Fafalios sought appellate overview of the conviction by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Fifth Circuit reviewed the language contained within the relevant statutes and laws, confirming that the place the language is unambiguous, the Court mustn’t look past the plain language of the statute or regulation. The Court acknowledged unequivocally that “under the plain language of the regulations, only the ‘master or other person having charge of the ship’ is responsible for maintenance of the oil record book.”

The Fifth Circuit rejected the federal government’s causes for why the conviction needs to be upheld. First, the federal government challenged the applicability of Rule 29, arguing that Fafalios ought to have moved to dismiss the indictment earlier than trial permitting the federal government a chance to appropriate any insufficiency. The Court disagreed.

In addition, the Fifth Circuit rejected the prosecutor’s argument that the chief engineer’s duty to signal and file bilge water operations within the oil file e book was a “continuing obligation.” The Court held that any failure by Fafalios to make a required entry occurred whereas he (and the vessel) have been nonetheless in worldwide waters and subsequently the United States didn’t have jurisdiction over such an offense, because the “failure to sign an oil record book while in international waters, standing alone, is not a violation of either APPS or its attendant regulations.”

The Court concluded that the regulation’s requirement for the file e book to be signed “without delay” implied that the offense was dedicated as quickly because the e book was not signed, and that totally different language would have been utilized by the drafters if a unbroken obligation was supposed.

Further, the Court rejected the federal government’s various argument that Fafalios was obligated, because the vessel’s chief engineer, to adjust to the laws’ requirement for the ship, itself, to “maintain” an oil file e book, discovering that such argument was “foreclosed by traditional rules of statutory construction, not to mention common sense.”

The Fifth Circuit criticized the federal government’s “strained reasoning” as to why this obligation ought to prolong to chief engineers, discovering that there was “no convincing explanation” as to why the ship’s obligation needs to be delegated to a chief engineer, particularly when the relevant statutes allow an in rem reason for motion towards the ship.

Recognizing the dearth of benefit to the case, the federal government’s argument that the Coast Guard had a widely known follow of implementing laws towards chief engineers which was rejected out of hand by the Fifth Circuit as “being without merit.”

The Court of Appeals highlighted that the Coast Guard’s previous practices didn’t present a motive to deviate from the regulation’s plain language.

Finally, in rejecting what it known as an “unusual” coverage argument, the Fifth Circuit acknowledged that it was unpersuaded by the federal government’s issues that studying the regulation to impose the obligation to keep up the file e book solely on the vessel’s grasp would trigger chief engineers to falsify data and conceal their falsification from the grasp.

In addition, the Fifth Circuit discovered the federal government’s argument to be nothing greater than a “contrived hypothetical.”

George M. Chalos, George A. Gaitas, and Briton P. Sparkman represented Mr. Fafalios throughout his felony trial within the Eastern District of Louisiana. George M. Chalos offered the oral argument to the panel for the Fifth Circuit on December 4, 2015.