Piro v. National Transp. Safety Bd.

Decision Date13 September 1995
Docket NumberNo. 94-70038,94-70038
Citation66 F.3d 335
PartiesNOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Daniel F. PIRO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Before: FLETCHER, POOLE and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Daniel F. Piro appeals an order of the National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB") upholding the Federal Aviation Administration's ("FAA") emergency order revoking his commercial pilot certificate on the grounds that he was convicted for possessing cocaine for sale. Piro argues that the NTSB abused its discretion in affirming the revocation of his commercial pilot certificate because his drug offense was not aircraft-related. He also argues that the license revocation constitutes multiple punishment in violation of the Constitution's ban against double jeopardy. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1486(a) (1988), and we affirm. 1

I. FACTS

On the night of November 9, 1989, Sheriff's deputies at the Nevada County Airport near Nevada City, California observed Piro and another man exit from a pickup truck, walk to an aircraft, and walk back to and enter the pickup truck. A consensual search revealed 1093 grams of cocaine in the truck, and $5200 on Piro's person. Piro was convicted by guilty plea in California Superior Court on May 14, 1990 for possession for sale of 28.5 grams or more of cocaine in violation of Cal. Health and Safety Code Sec. 11351. He appealed. 2 On December 19, 1991, the California Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Piro was sentenced to two years imprisonment and was ordered to pay $5000 restitution. He served 15 months in prison and is now serving three years probation.

While his appeal was pending, on April 5, 1991, Piro filed an application for a second class airman medical certificate. He stated on the application that he had no convictions other than traffic convictions, and signed the application after his doctor wrote on it that there had been "no changes" from his previous application in 1987.

On October 1, 1993, the FAA Administrator issued an emergency order revoking Piro's commercial pilot and medical certificates after it was discovered that Piro had been convicted for possession of cocaine for sale and omitted this conviction from his application for the medical certificate. The Administrator found that Piro violated Federal Aviation Regulation ("FAR") Sec. 61.15, which provides that "[a] conviction for the violation of any federal or state statute relating to the growing, manufacture, sale, disposition, possession, transportation or importation" of illegal drugs is grounds for "suspension or revocation of any certificate or rating issued under this part." See 14 CFR Sec. 61.15 (1989). The Administrator also found that Piro violated FAR Sec. 67.20, which prohibits the making of "[a]ny fraudulent or intentionally false statement on any application for a medical certificate," and makes such a violation the "basis for suspending or revoking any airman, ground instructor, or medical certificate or rating held by that person." See 14 CFR Secs. 67.20(a)(1), (b) (1989).

Piro appealed the Administrator's decision. The ALJ entered a decision on November 22, 1993, finding that Piro did not intentionally falsify his application and that his drug offense did not involve an aircraft. The ALJ reduced his sentence to a 180 day suspension of his commercial pilot certificate. 3

The Administrator appealed the ALJ's decision to the NTSB. The NTSB reversed the ALJ's decision on December 15, 1993 and reinstated the Administrator's order revoking Piro's commercial pilot certificate. The NTSB found that, whether or not an airplane was involved, Piro's possession of drugs for commercial sale was serious enough to draw into question his qualification to hold a commercial pilot certificate, since it demonstrated a lack of the necessary care, judgment and responsibility a certificate holder must possess.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the NTSB order in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. Howard v. FAA, 17 F.3d 1213, 1215 (9th Cir.1994). Our review of the NTSB is "narrowly circumscribed." Olsen v. NTSB, 14 F.3d 471, 474 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Janka v. DOT, NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir.1991)). "We will affirm unless the NTSB's order is 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.' " Olsen, 14 F.3d at 474 (quoting 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A)); accord Howard, 17 F.3d at 1215.

III. PROPRIETY OF REVOCATION

Although FAR Sec. 61.15(a) specifically authorizes either suspension or revocation of a pilot certificate when the holder is convicted of a state or federal crime relating to narcotics distribution, Piro maintains that revocation of his commercial pilot certificate was an excessive sanction because revocation is generally reserved for cases involving the use of an airplane. See Essery v. DOT, NTSB, 857 F.2d 1286, 1291 (9th Cir.1988) (FAA policy mandates uniformity of sanctions for similar violations). We disagree. The NTSB has broad discretion to decide the appropriate sanction for violation of FAA regulations. Cobb v. NTSB, 572 F.2d 202, 204 (9th Cir.1977) (per curiam). FAR Sec. 61.15(a) expressly authorizes either revocation or suspension of the infractor's certificate. This express approval of revocation as a sanction for narcotics violations not involving the use...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Luk v. Com.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 27 Noviembre 1995
    ...the public health, the public safety, or the public morals, may be required to be licensed"). Accord Piro v. National Transp. Safety Bd., 66 F.3d 335, 1995 WL 542753 (9th Cir.1995) (loss of pilot's license not punishment as it bears rational relationship to government's interest in promotin......
  • Garvey v. Ortiz
    • United States
    • Court of National Transportation Safety Board
    • 26 Febrero 1998
    ... ... NTSB Order No. EA-4635 No. SE-14605United States Court of National Transportation Safety ... BoardFebruary 26, 1998 ... Administrator v. Piro, NTSB Order No. EA-4049 ... (1993), at 3-4, aff'd sub nom, Piro v ... ...
  • Garvey v. Daniel
    • United States
    • Court of National Transportation Safety Board
    • 29 Agosto 1997
    ... ... NTSB Order No. EA-4580 No. SE-14532United States Court of National Transportation Safety ... BoardAugust 29, 1997 ... See ... Administrator v. Piro, NTSB Order No. EA-4049 ... (1993), aff'd Piro v. NTSB, 66 F.3d 335 ... ...
  • Hinson v. Berryhill
    • United States
    • Court of National Transportation Safety Board
    • 4 Enero 1996
    ...the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The motion is denied. The Board, as recently as its decision in Administrator v. Manning, NTSB Order EA-4363 (served May 26, 1995), long rejected the suggestion that revocation is a punitive sanction, given the remedial intent behind remo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT