WPC%  vdx d*5#rEcqe=s `~,evnvQ/s U|'3q=?9"5' aL8Ƌ/,F-6q4]&Q@辑04Na\ 8I=(eڞbXaQ;9J)*ݼ째qnsWŊ:4"]7G5𾕴>Ejo.3rgDu%`lg;&qH@mPf:*B#"D؊8?^?%KAz+Oaz$9/2-lh>?\^w9F7gKnͰ9c2Ǖv΍u7оKS0bQ+gZB(N"O4uӾhIЃ~>Y| aIIן&"wR   RHC  " e@37676 e@ R( h   (_* !       8O4XXdd8!o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo   COFFIN,SeniorCircuitJudge. Thedefendantsappealtheir  convictionsforenteringatemporarilyofflimitsmilitaryareain x theoceanwatersadjacenttoCampGarcia,ontheislandof_Vieques_, $t PuertoRico,inviolationof18U.S.C.1382.Becausealawful   regulationbarringentryexistedandthedefendantshadactual |  noticeofit,weaffirmtheconvictions. ( x  @$ I.Background $     TherecordreflectsthatonApril28,2001,brothersHector   andAngelVentura_Melendez_,thedefendants,leftthe_Esperanza_ H  harborinPuertoRicoinasmallfishingboatatapproximately D 10:00a.m.witheighttotenothersmallboatsheadedinthe  directionofthenearbyNavyfiringrangeinthewatersadjacentto L CampGarcia.Thedefendantswerefishermenwhosefamily H traditionallyfishedinthosewaters.    TheCoastGuardcutter_VASHON_,patrollingtheareatoenforce P atemporarysecurityzone,observedthefleetofsmallboats L headingtowardtheprohibitedarea.Theregulationcreatingthe   temporarysecurityzone,althoughsignedanddatedApril26,2001, T!" wasnotpublisheduntilMay3,2001.Thus,thepublication #P$ providedonlyretrospectivenoticeofthezone'screationfrom $& April26throughApril30forabombingandgunneryrange.66Fed. X&!( Reg.22,121(May3,2001).Theregulationprohibitedvesselsand (T#* peoplefromenteringthezoneunlessspecificallyauthorizedtodo )%, so.Id. \+&. _  TheCoastGuardannouncedthesecurityzoneoverVHFradioon  themorningofthedefendants'apprehension,althoughthe \ defendants'boatwasnotequippedwithaVHFradioandtheywere X unlikelytohaveheardthebroadcasts.Thereisnoindicationin   therecordwhethertheCoastGuardutilizedothernotification `  proceduressuchaspostingsinpublicplacesorplacementinlocal  \  newspapers.      Concernedthattheflotillaofsmallboatswasheadeddirectly d  intothezone,theCoastGuarddispatchedarigidhullinflatable `  boatandfourpersonneltointercepttheflotilla.TheCoast   Guard'sinflatableboatwasbrightorangeandclearlymarked"U.S. h CoastGuard."Inaddition,theCoastGuardpersonnelwerewearing d coverallswith"U.S.CoastGuard"writtenonthefrontandbackin  largeletteringaswellaslifejacketsmarked"U.S.CoastGuard." l Thelieutenantincharge,whoremainedontheVASHON,directedthe h CoastGuardpersonnelonthesmallboattoaskthefishingboatsto  turnaroundimmediatelyandgivethemanopportunitytoleavethe p  securityzone. !l"   AstheCoastGuardboatsapproachedtheflotilla,the "$ Guardsmenattemptedtostopthefishermen,yellinginSpanish, t$& wavingtheirarms,andusinghandsignals.TheGuardsmenhopedto  &p!( comealongsidethesmallboatsandexplainthattheywereentering '#* asecurityzone.Membersoftheflotilla,however,refusedtoheed x)$, theCoastGuard'swarnings;thedefendantsinparticularshook $+t&. theirfistsandshouted"carajo." #  1      ׀TheCoastGuardboat,along  withaNavyharborsecurityboatandasecondinflatableboat \ dispatchedfromanotherCoastGuardcutter,gavechasetothe X fishingboats.     WhentheCoastGuardpersonnelyelled,fromadistanceof `  approximatelytwentyyards,"Securityzone,stopyourboat,"the  \  defendantslookedatthemandspedfurtherintothezone.Because   therewereseveralboatsfromtheflotillathenenteringthe d  securityarea,theCoastGuardfocuseditseffortsonintercepting `  theslowestoftheboats,whichbelongedtothedefendants.The   CoastGuardgavechaseandwaseventuallygrantedpermissionto h forciblystopthedefendants'boatwithinthesecurityzone. d   Followinganonjurytrial,thedefendants'Rule29motionsfor  acquittalweredeniedandtheywereconvictedofviolatingsection l 1382,prohibitingentryinto"anymilitary,naval,orCoastGuard h reservation,post,fort,arsenal,yard,station,orinstallation,  foranypurposeprohibitedbylaworlawfulregulation,"and p  sentenced.Thedefendantsarguethatalawfulregulation,required !l" bysection1382,didnotexist,and,evenifitdid,itcouldnot "$ beenforcedagainstthembecausetheyhadnonoticeofit.We t$& reviewthedistrictcourt'sinterpretationoffederalstatutesde  &p!( novo.SeeUnitedStatesv.Maxwell,254F.3d21,24(1stCir.  2001)(citingUnitedStatesv.Carroll,105F.3d740,744(1stCir. \ 1997)). X @P P  II.Whethera"LawfulRegulation"Existed      Thedefendantsarguethata"lawfulregulation"didnotexist |  atthetimetheywerearrestedbecausetheruleestablishingthe ( x  temporarysecurityzonehadnotyetbeenpublished,assertedlyin $  violationoftheAdministrativeProceduresAct(APA),5U.S.C.   500596.  #  2      ׀  ,|    Noticeofaproposedrule,opportunityforpubliccomment,and ( publicationofthefinalrulearecentraltenetsoftherulemaking  processoutlinedbysection553oftheAPA.See5U.S.C.553(b) 0 &(d).Nevertheless,rulesinvolvinga"militaryorforeign , affairsfunction"ofthefederalgovernmentareexempted.Id.  553(a)(1).Thedefendantscontendthatcreationoftherulehere, 4 regardlessofitspurposeofsettingasideanareaformilitary 0 activity,wasacivilianratherthanamilitaryfunction.They   reason,withoutcitingauthority,thataruleregulatingcivilians 8!"  fulfillsacivilian,notamilitary,function. "4$   Here,therulecreatedatemporarysecurityzonecomprisedof   acombinedareaofoceanandlandadjacenttoabombingrangeata \ militaryinstallation.Aruledesignedtorendersafeandfeasible X theperformanceofamilitaryfunctionbypreventinginterference   onthepartofciviliansnecessarilyservesamilitaryfunctionas `  wellasacivilianone. Specifyingasecurityzoneseemstousno  \  lessdirectlyrelatedtomilitaryactionthanidentifyingtargets   orestablishingthetimeforartilleryexercises.( #  3      ׀Thus,the d  proposedzonewaswellwithintheconceptofmilitaryfunction. `    Thedefendantsalsocontendthatevenifthemilitaryfunction   exceptionsavestherulefromhavingviolatedsection553,it h failedtohurdlethepublicationrequirementofsection552,which d wasnot,theyassert,subjecttotheexception.Becausetherule  wasnotpublisheduntilafteritsimplementation,thedefendants l contendthatsection552wasviolated. h   Regardlessofwhetherthemilitaryfunctionexceptionapplies  tosection552,however,therewasnoinconsistencywiththat p  provisionbecauseitalsoprovidesaroleforactualnotice. !l" Section552(a)(1)contemplatesthatactualnoticemayattimes "$ supercedeconstructivenoticethroughpublication,explainingthat t$& "[e]xcepttotheextentthatapersonhasactualandtimelynotice  ofthetermsthereof,apersonmaynotinanymannerberequiredto \ resortto,orbeadverselyaffectedby,amatterrequiredtobe X publishedintheFederalRegisterandnotsopublished."Seealso   UnitedStatesv.Mowat,582F.2d1194,1201n.5(9thCir.1978) `  ("Byvirtueof[section552(a)(1)'sactualnotice]provision,  \  regulationsthatareunpublishedinviolationofthe[APA]are   unlawfulonlyasagainstthosewhohavenoactualandtimely d  knowledgeoftheircontents.").) #  4       `    Becausetherule'spromulgationdidnotviolatetheAPA,the   factthattherulewasnotpublisheduntilafterthedefendants' h arrestforviolatingthetemporarysecurityzonedoesnotdisabuse d theruleofitsstatusasa"lawfulregulation."    @` ` III.WhethertheDefendantshadActualNotice  l   Thedefendantsnextarguethateveniftheregulationwas 4 valid,theyhadnonoticeofit,andthereforeenforcingitagainst 0 themviolatedtheirdueprocessrightsaswellastheExPostFacto   ClauseofArticleI ,prohibitingthecriminalizationofinnocent 8!" actionsafterthefact.Wedonotreachtheissue ofwhetherthe "4$ defendantshadconstructivenoticethroughVHFradiotransmissions $& sincethegovernmenthasnotsoalleged.Thegovernmentinstead <&!( arguesthatthedefendantshadactualnoticethattheirentryonto '8#* thezonewasprohibited.SeeMaxwell,254F.3dat24(holdingthat  convictionsundersection1382require"knowledgeornotice,actual \ orconstructive,thatsuchentrywasprohibited");seealsoNason X v.KennebecCountyCETA,646F.2d10,19(1stCir.1981)("[E]ven   werepublicationcalledfor,itsabsencewouldnotinvalidatean `  otherwiseproperrulewherethepartyadverselyaffectedhad  \  'actualandtimelynotice.'").     Incaseswithsimilarfactpatterns,courtshaveconfirmed d  thatactualnoticeissufficienttosupportaconviction.In `  UnitedStatesv.ParrillaBonilla,648F.2d1373(1stCir.1981),   thedefendantsassertedthattheyhadnotseentheNaval h Instructionprohibitingentryintoabeachclosedfornaval d operations.Id.at1378.Thiscourtfoundthatevenifthe  defendantshadnotseentheNavalInstruction,theconvictionswere l sustainableifthegovernmentshowedthatthedefendants h "reasonablyunderstoodthatnavalauthoritieshaddeclaredthebase  closedtoallpersonswholackedpassesorotherauthorization." p  Id.at1378,1383(overturningtheconvictionsandholdingthat"it !l" isdoubtfulwhethertherecordsupportsafindingthatappellants "$ reasonablyknewthattheirpresencewasforbidden").InMowat, t$& theNinthCircuitupheldthedefendants'convictionsbecausethey  &p!( hadactualnoticethattheirunauthorizedentryintoamilitary '#* reservationviolatedaregulation,eventhoughitwasnotpublished x)$, untilmanymonths aftertheirarrests.Mowat,582F.2dat120103. $+t&.    Thedistrictcourthereconcludedthatamplecircumstantial  evidenceshowedthatthedefendantswereawarethattheCoastGuard \ wastryingtostopthemfromenteringasecurityzone.United X Statesv.VenturaMelendez,186F.Supp.2d55,59(D.R.I.2001).   Thecourtnotedthat"theCoastGuardinterceptedtheDefendants, `  yelledatthemtostop,inanattempttoimpedetransgressioninto  \  asecurityzoneonlytoreceivefromthemobscenewordsfollowedby   adefiantspeedoff....Handsignalswerealsousedurging d  Defendantstostoptonoavail."Id.Thecourtconcludedthat `  "[e]venacceptingastrueDefendants'versionofthefactsinthis   case,theCourtisleftwithonlyoneacceptableconclusion:they h hadactualknowledgethatthesecurityzonehadbeenestablished d priortotheirtrespass."Id.at58.* #  5      ׀    Nevertheless,thedefendantssuggestthattheirreaction l reflectedonlyfrustrationwithperceivedharassmentintheir h traditionalfishinggrounds.Theyclaimthattheirshoutingand  fistwavingdidnotindicateanawarenessthattheywereentering p  aforbiddenzone,butratherdistressthattheywouldbeunableto  fishintheircustomaryareaoreventoremovetheirtrapstoavoid \ damagefrompassingmilitaryvessels.Onemayempathizewiththeir X predicament,butthefactremainsthattheyblatantlydisregarded   theCoastGuard'sorderthattheyleavethearea. + #  6       `    Reviewingtherecord,weconcludethatthecourt'sfindingof  \  actualnoticewasamplysupported.Assuch,thedefendants'   convictionswerenotinvalidanddidnotviolatetheDueProcessor d  ExPostFactoClauses.  `  @IV.WhetherOneoftheDefendantswasaMerePassenger      Thedefendants'finalargumentisthatoneofthemwasa"mere  passenger"whodidnotpossessthe"purpose"requiredbysection 0 1382.Thedefendantsbaldlyassertthatoneofthemtheydonot , specifywhichwasapassengerwhowasmerelypresentinthe  zone,ratherthanwillfullytransgressingit.Theevidence 4 presented,however,suggestedthatbothinhabitantsofthevessel 0 wereinvolvedinshoutingandwavingfistsattheCoastGuard.    Moreimportantly,theevidencedoesnotrevealanysuggestionthat 8!" eitherdefendantatanytimeexpressedadesiretoexittheboat, "4$ turnitaround,orotherwiseleavethesecurityzone.Without $& more,itisdifficulttoconceivethattheactionsofeither  defendantwerenotpurposeful. \ Forthereasonssetforthabove,theorderofthedistrictcourtis X affirmed. `