FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _ No. 1D19-0181 _ PATRICE KERR, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. _ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus—Original Jurisdiction. March 7, 2019 PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the merits. LEWIS, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., concur. _ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _ Patrice Kerr, pro se, Petitioner. Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, ..

Whether, when making a recommendation to award to NTT DATA, Inc., the contract resulting from Invitation to Negotiate 2019-44 Re-Bid, Social Media Monitoring, Respondent, State of Florida Department of Education ("the Department"), acted contrary to one or more governing statutes, rules, policies, or procurement specifications, or any combination thereof; and, if so, whether the intended award was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the intended award was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the competition. Recommend award to contract as previously recommended by the Department.

The issue is whether Respondent's decision to reject all replies to Invitation to Negotiate 2019-44, Social Media Monitoring (ITN), is arbitrary or illegal, within the meaning of section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes.DOE's failure to meet statutory deadline for procurement of social media monitoring tool does not constitute illegality so as to require setting aside of its reject-all decision.

The issue is whether, pursuant to section 561.32(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, Respondent is required to approve the transfer of alcoholic beverage license to Petitioner after its purported purchase of the license at a sheriff's sale.Purchaser of alcoholic beverage license at sheriff's sale not entitled to statutory transfer because sheriff's levy was on obsolete certificate.

The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner’s request to renew a lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62- 08383 on or about July 8, 2011, should be approved or denied.Petitioner entitled to renewal of its lien against quota license where DABT failed to notify lienholder of license revocation proceeding.

The issue is whether Respondent's permit as a retail tobacco dealer should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in an Administrative Complaint issued on May 6, 2014, by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division).Permit holder established that all owners were disclosed to DBPR and that records of out-of-state sales need not be maintained or produced.

Did Respondent, El Tucanazo Bar & Grill, Inc. (El Tucanazo), violate section 561.29(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2014),1/ by failing to produce records of all monthly purchases and sales of alcoholic beverages within ten days of a written request for them? (Count 1) Did El Tucanazo violate Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a) because it did not derive at least 51 percent of its total gross revenue from retail sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages? (Count 2) Did El Tucanazo fail to meet the minimum qualification requirements of section 561.20(2)(a)4. for holding its license by serving intoxicating beverages after food service hours ended? (Count 3) Did El Tucanazo fail to satisfy the requirement of rule 61A-3.0141(3)(d) to discontinue selling alcoholic beverages when service of full course meals had been stopped? (Count 4) Did El Tucanazo violate the requirement of section 561.33(2) that a licensee must give Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Department), 30 days' written notice of changing the name of the licensed place of business? (Count 5) If any of the violations charged occurred, what is the appropriate penalty?For purposes of liquor sales under special license, premises must be covered. Parking lot sales do not count. Department proved sale of alcohol after food service ended. Lack of clear sales records doesn't prove food sales were not 51% of gross sales.

The issues in these consolidated cases are as follows: (1) whether Respondents employed Lorene Walker, who had contact with scholarship students and who did not meet the requisite criteria to pass the Level 2 background screening as required by section 1002.421(1)(m) and (p), Florida Statutes (2019), and if so, what is the appropriate remedy; and (2) whether Respondents engaged in fraud in violation of section 1002.421(3)(d) and, if so, whether Petitioner should revoke Respondents' participation in several Florida Scholarship Programs.1Respondents employed a person who failed Level 2 background check and engaged in fraud as related to employee's screening and employment status; Respondents’ eligibility to participate in Florida Scholarship Programs should be revoked.

The issues in these consolidated cases are as follows: (1) whether Respondents employed Lorene Walker, who had contact with scholarship students and who did not meet the requisite criteria to pass the Level 2 background screening as required by section 1002.421(1)(m) and (p), Florida Statutes (2019), and if so, what is the appropriate remedy; and (2) whether Respondents engaged in fraud in violation of section 1002.421(3)(d) and, if so, whether Petitioner should revoke Respondents' participation in several Florida Scholarship Programs.1Respondents employed a person who failed Level 2 background check and engaged in fraud as related to employee's screening and employment status; Respondents’ eligibility to participate in Florida Scholarship Programs should be revoked.

Whether grounds exist to deny the application of Respondent, Academy of Education School (6979), to participate in the Florida state scholarship programs under chapter 1002, Florida Statutes.Respondent proved that the reasons cited in the Commissioner’s denial of Respondent’s application to participate in the Florida state scholarship programs are not supported by the facts.