Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
DAVID EDWARD COX ) EB Docket No. 05-232
Amateur Radio Operator and Licensee of ) File No. EB-04-IH-0384
Amateur Radio Station W5OER
ORDER OF REVOCATION
Adopted: December 4, 2006 Released: December 4, 2006
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
1. By this Order of Revocation, pursuant to authority delegated to the
Enforcement Bureau under Section 0.111(a)(16) of the Commission's
rules, we revoke the above-captioned amateur license held by David
Edward Cox. We conclude, based on the evidence of his conviction for
felony burglary and firearms-related offenses, that Mr. Cox lacks the
basic requisite character qualifications to be and remain a Commission
2. On September 29, 2005, the Commission, by the Chief, Enforcement
Bureau, designated this case for hearing. The OSC specified the
(a) to determine the effect of David Edward Cox's felony convictions on
his qualifications to be and to remain a Commission licensee; and
(b) to determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the
foregoing issue, whether David Edward Cox is qualified to be and to remain
a Commission licensee and whether his Amateur Radio License W5OER should
3. The OSC ordered Mr. Cox, pursuant to Section 1.91(c) of the
Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the date of release of
the OSC (i.e., by October 30, 2005), in person or by his attorney, to
file a written notice of appearance in order to avail himself of the
opportunity to be heard. The OSC required that the notice of
appearance state that Mr. Cox would appear on the date fixed for the
hearing and present evidence on the specified issues. The OSC informed
Mr. Cox that, if he failed to so file a written notice of appearance,
his right to a hearing on the matter of his amateur license would be
deemed waived, and the proceeding would be resolved thereafter in
accordance with Section 1.92(c) of the Commission's rules.
4. The Presiding Judge determined that Mr. Cox had received a copy of the
OSC but had failed to file a written notice of appearance seeking to
avail himself of the opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, the
Presiding Judge concluded that Mr. Cox had waived his right to a
hearing, and the Presiding Judge terminated the proceeding and
certified the case to the Commission for disposition in accordance
with Section 1.92(c) of the Commission's rules. The Commission has
delegated authority to the Enforcement Bureau for such revocation
proceedings, terminated on the basis of waiver, pursuant to Section
0.111(a)(16) of the Commission's rules.
5. Mr. Cox has held an amateur license since 1995. The Commission's
records do not reveal any violations by him of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), or the Commission's rules. However,
on August 27, 2003, Mr. Cox was arrested and subsequently charged with
two counts of simple burglary, each a felony. On January 8, 2004, the
District Court of Louisiana convicted Mr. Cox on both counts and
sentenced him to five (5) years incarceration at hard labor, but
suspended the sentence and placed Mr. Cox on supervised probation for
five (5) years. Mr. Cox was released from jail on January 14, 2004. On
September 21, 2004, Mr. Cox was arrested again and has been
incarcerated since that date. Following a plea agreement, on June 3,
2005, the United States District Court sentenced Mr. Cox to concurrent
terms of forty-one (41) months for felony violations of various
firearms provisions contained in Section 922(g)(l), 922(j) and 924(l)
of the United States Criminal Code. The Court also ordered him to make
restitution to Redstick Firearms and Indoor Range in the amount of
three thousand dollars ($3,000).
6. Section 312(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Commission may revoke
any license "because of conditions coming to the attention of the
Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant a license or
permit on an original application." Among the factors that the
Commission considers in determining whether the applicant has the
requisite qualifications to operate the station for which authority is
sought is the character of the licensee or applicant. In making
character assessments, the Commission focuses on misconduct that
demonstrates the licensee's or applicant's proclivity to deal
truthfully with the Commission and to comply with its rules and
policies. The Commission has consistently applied character standards
developed for broadcasters to applicants and licensees in the amateur
7. The Commission considers relevant "evidence of any conviction for
misconduct constituting a felony." The Commission believes that
"[b]ecause all felonies are serious crimes, any conviction provides an
indication of an applicant's or licensee's propensity to obey the law"
and to conform to provisions of both the Act and the agency's rules
and policies. In this case, Mr. Cox has been convicted of several
felonies. We find that such egregious criminal misconduct justifies a
finding that Mr. Cox will obey the law only when it suits him. Mr.
Cox's record as an amateur licensee and his assertions regarding his
character and his crimes are insufficient to overcome the impact of
the crimes. Thus, we find that Mr. Cox does not possess the character
qualifications required by this Commission to be or remain a licensee.
C. License Revocation
8. The Commission's character policies provide that any felony conviction
is a matter predictive of licensee behavior and is directly relevant
to the functioning of the Commission's regulatory mission. The
serious convictions described above mandate the conclusion that Mr.
Cox does not possess the requisite qualifications to be or remain a
Commission licensee. Based on the foregoing, we conclude, as a matter
of law, that Mr. Cox's above-captioned license should be revoked.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 312 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 1.92(d) and
0.111(a)(17) of the Commission's rules, that the captioned amateur
license held by David Edward Cox IS REVOKED, effective the fortieth
(40th) day after release of this Order, unless Mr. Cox files a
petition for reconsideration or application for review within thirty
(30) days of the release of this Order, in which case the effective
date will be suspended, pending further Order of the Commission.
10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this ORDER OF REVOCATION shall be
sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to David Edward Cox,
Register No. 04275-095, F.D.C. Houston, 1200 Texas Avenue, Houston,
Texas 77002 and to David Edward Cox, 16420 Stoney Point Burch Road,
Pride, Louisiana 70770.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kris Anne Monteith
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
See 47 C.F.R. S 0.111(a)(16).
See In re David Edward Cox, Order to Show Cause, 20 FCC Rcd 15155 (2005)
Id. at 15157.
See 47 C.F.R. S 1.91(c).
See OSC, 20 FCC Rcd at 15157 P 7.
See id., P 8; 47 C.F.R. S 1.92(c) (provides that, whenever a hearing is
waived, the presiding administrative law judge shall, at the earliest
practicable date, issue an order reciting the events or circumstances
constituting a waiver of hearing, terminating the hearing proceeding, and
certifying the case to the Commission).
See In the Matter of David Edward Cox, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC
05M-57, released November 22, 2005.
See id. See also 47 C.F.R. S 1.92(c).
47 C.F.R. S 0.111(a)(16).
47 U.S.C. S 151 et seq.
See Record of Arrest On: Cox, David E., East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's
Office, dated November 29, 2004.
See State of Louisiana v. David Edward Cox, No. 08-03-289 (19^th Judicial
District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, January 8, 2004)
See supra, note 12.
See United States of America v. David E. Cox, No. 3:04CR00137-001 (M.D.
La., June 3, 2005) (unpublished). 18 U.S.C. SS 922(g)(1) (possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon), 922(j) (possession of a stolen firearm),
and 924(l) (theft of a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer).
47 U.S.C. S 312(a)(2).
See 47 U.S.C. S 308(b).
See Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, 102
FCC 2d 1179, 1188-90 PP 20-23 (1986) (subsequent history omitted)
("Character Policy Statement").
See, e.g., Schoenbohm v. FCC, 204 F.3d 243, 246-49 (D.C. Cir. 2000),
cert. denied, 531 U.S. 968 (2000) (affirming the Commission's denial of an
amateur radio operator's license renewal application based on the
licensee's felony conviction for computer fraud, as well as his lack of
candor regarding such conviction); George E. Rodgers, Hearing Designation
Order, 10 FCC Rcd 3978 (WTB 1995) (finding that an amateur radio
licensee's felony conviction for indecent assault upon and corruption of
minors raised a material question of fact regarding his character and
qualifications to remain a Commission licensee); Thomas M. Haynie, Order
to Show Cause and Suspension Order, 7 FCC Rcd 4994 (FOB 1992), affirmed
and licenses revoked, 7 FCC Rcd 7291 (PRB 1992) (revoking general
radiotelephone operator, amateur advanced class radio and amateur radio
station licenses because of the licensee's felony conviction for
intentional interference with satellite communications); Jerry E. Gastil,
Order to Show Cause, 4 FCC Rcd 3977 (PRB, FOB 1989) (finding that a
general radio operator and amateur radio licensee's felony conviction for
interfering with governmental radio communications raised serious
questions regarding his character and qualifications to remain a
See Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing,
Amendment of Part 1, the Rules of Practice and Procedure, Relating to
Written Responses to Commission Inquiries and the Making of
Misrepresentation to the Commission by Applicants, Permittees, and
Licensees, and the Reporting of Information Regarding Character
Qualifications, Policy Statement and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3252, P 4 (1990)
("1990 Character Order") (subsequent history omitted).
State of Louisiana v. David Edward Cox, supra note 13; United States of
America v. David E. Cox, supra note 15.
See, e.g., Contemporary Media, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd 14437, 14442, P 11
(1998), Recons. denied, 14 FCC Rcd 8790 (1999), aff'd Contemporary Media,
Inc., v. FCC, 214 F.3d 187 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 920
(2001) ("Contemporary Media").
See Letter from David E. Cox to James W. Shook, Investigations and
Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
dated September 17, 2004.
See Contemporary Media, 13 FCC Rcd at 14445, P 15.
See Character Policy Statement, supra note 19; 1990 Character Order, supra
See 47 U.S.C. S 312.
See 47 C.F.R. SS 1.92(d), 0.111(a)(16).
(...continued from previous page)
Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2463
Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2463