STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

GENERAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-2219CVL

) DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

) INTERSTATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-2220CVL

) DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

) MISSCO CORPORATION OF JACKSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-2221CVL

) DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to the Joint Stipulations between Petitioners, MISSCO, GENERAL, INTERSTATE, and Respondent, Department of Management Services (DMS), no hearing was held in these cases. These cases are consolidated for the purpose of this order. This case was submitted to the Hearing Officer on the stipulated facts.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: C. Graham Carothers, Esquire

Ausley, McMullen, McGehee Carothers & Proctor

Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: Terry A. Stepp, Esquire

Department of Management Services Suite 309, Knight Building

2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for consideration herein is whether the Petitioners, MISSCO, GENERAL, AND INTERSTATE should be placed on the convicted vendor list pursuant to Section 287.133 Florida Statutes (1991).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated April 9, 1992 the Secretary of the Department of Management Services, issued Notices of Intent to place Petitioners on the Florida Convicted Vendor List. By Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing, filed with the Department of April 13, 1993, Petitioners contested the Notices of Intent and requested formal Hearings pursuant to 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On April 14, 1993 the petitions were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the appointment of a hearing officer. Subsequent to the forwarding of the Petition, the Petitioners and the Respondent entered into Joint Stipulations.

The Joint Stipulations were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings with the Joint Response to the Initial Orders on April 30, 1993. The parties jointly filed a Proposed Order restating the stipulated facts and agreeing upon the applicable law and outcome. The proposed facts were adopted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The facts stated in the Joint Stipulations to the extent set forth below are hereby adopted as findings of fact:

1. On April 9, 1993, DMS issued notices of intent pursuant to Section 187.133(3)(e)(1), Florida Statutes. Jt. Stips. Appen. at pp. 72-73.

   
   

2. On April 13, 1993, MISSCO filed petitions with DMS for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to determine whether it is in the public interest for MISSCO, GENERAL, or INTERSTATE to be placed on the Florida Convicted Vendor List pursuant to Section 287.133, Florida Statutes.

   Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 74-77.

   
   

3. Subparagraph 287.133(3)(e)e., Florida Statutes, establishes factors which, if applicable to a convicted vendor, will mitigate against placement of that vendor upon the convicted vendor list.

   
   

4. On April 5, 1991, General Equipment Manufacturers, Inc., (hereinafter "General"), a Mississippi corporation, and wholly owned subsidiary of MISSCO Corporation, was convicted of the commission of a public entity crime as defined within subsection 287.133(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Jr. Stips. p. 1, Appen. at pp. 41-43.

   
   

5. A criminal information was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against General Equipment Manufacturers, Inc., alleging a violation of Section 1001, Title 18, United States Code and applicable Federal Acquisition Regulations which occurred on or about December 2, 1988. Jt. Stips. p. 1, Appen. at p. 40.

   
   

6. The criminal information filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Mississippi charged General with falsely representing on or about December 2, 1988 that the equipment schedule and price list submitted to the General Services Administration (hereinafter GSA) was General's established commercial price list. (Jt. Stips. p. 2, Appen. at p. 40.

7. Upon entry of a plea of guilty, the Court entered a judgement against General which was filed April 5, 1991. The judgement required payment of a special assessment of $200, a fine in the amount of $10,000, without interest, and restitution in the amount of $28,000. Jt. Stips. p. 2, Appen. at pp. 40-48.

   
   

8. The GSA issued Solicitation No. FCGS-X8-38010-N for FSC Group 66 Part II, Section P, Laboratory/Pharmacy Furniture. General submitted an offer dated August 18, 1988, and signed by Charles H. Wright, General Manager of General's SystaModules Division. In connection with its offer, General submitted its purported commercial price list dated January 31, 1987. Mr. Wright certified in Section M-FSS-330, M.3, Basis for Price Negotiation, Item (c), Certificate of Established Catalog or Market Price, that:

   
   

   1. The price(s) quoted in General's proposal is based

      on established catalog or market prices of commercial items, as defined in FAR 15.804-3(c), in effect on the date of the offer or on the dates of revisions submitted during the course of negotiations.

   2. Substantial quantities of the items have been sold to the general public at such prices.

   3. All of the data, including sales data, submitted with General's offer are accurate, complete, and

      current representations of actual transactions to the date when price negotiations are concluded.

      
      

9. By letter dated December 2, 1988, Mr. Wright, in his capacity as General Manager of General's SystaModules Division, certified on behalf of General that:

   
   

   . . . all data submitted with General's offer pursuant to the discount schedule ad marketing data sheets and any other data submitted as as part of General's offer on Solicitation FGS-X8-38010-N are current, accurate, and complete a of the conclusion of negotiations, which occurred on December 2, 1988.

   Jt. Stips. p. 2-3, Appen. at pp. 51-53.

   
   

10. On the basis of General's offer on Solicitation No. FGS-X8-38010-N, the GSA awarded General Contract No. GS-00F-06709 on December 13, 1988. The contract was for the period February 1, 1989, through January 31, 1992. Jt. Stips. p. 3-4, Appen. at p. 53.

    
    

11. An investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation determined that General provided the GSA with fabricated price lists in connection with FGS-X8-38010-N. Jt. Stips. p. 4, Appen. at pp. 53-54.

    
    

12. The details of the criminal information against General are discussed in the findings and determination made by the GSA Office of Acquisition Policy, dated May 18, 1992, which are incorporated herein by reference. Jt. Stips. Appen. at pp. 49-71). Particular findings are as follows:

    
    

    1. Federal debarment was imposed on General and its corporate officials Messrs. Wright and Majure. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 50.

    2. The debarments were effective throughout the Federal Executive Branch. The debarment precluded the award, renewal, or extension of federal contracts. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 50.

       
       

    3. Debarment proceedings were initiated by separate notices dated November 1, 1990 based on a referral from the Federal General Services Administration (GSA), Office of Inspector General (OIG). Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 51.

       
       

    4. General bid on GSA Solicitation No. FGS-X3-36426-N and in connection with its offer General submitted a "dealer retail price list," and certified that: its prices were based on established catalog or market prices, substantial quantities of the items had been sold to the general public at said prices: and that all of the data submitted with its offer was accurate, complete and current representations of actual transactions up to the date when price negotiations were concluded. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 51.

       
       

    5. General's offer on the solicitation was accepted and it was awarded contract number GS-00F-70316 on April 19, 1984. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 52.

       
       

    6. On June 28, 1985 General made the same representations as to GSA Solicitation No. FGS-X8-38000-N for laboratory and pharmacy furniture. The award was made to General on December 9, 1985. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 52.

       
       

    7. Identical representations were made by General in response to GSA Solicitation No. FCGS-X8-38010-N issued on July 7, 1988. The solicitation was for laboratory and pharmacy furniture. The award was made to General on December 13, 1988. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 53.

       
       

    8. Criminal Information Number J90-00080(B) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on November 15, 1990. The information was based on the FBI investigation of General's submission of false commercial price lists to GSA. The criminal information charged General with violating Title 18, U.S.C. 1001 in connection with its offer on Solicitation No. FGS-X8-38010-N. It alleged that General knowingly, willfully, and falsely represented to GSA that the equipment schedule and price lists submitted with General's 1988 offer was General's established commercial price list. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 54.

       
       

    9. General pled guilty to Criminal Information No. J90-00080(B) on December 19, 1990 and was ordered to pay a fine of $10,000 and to make just restitution to the GSA in the amount of $28,000. The conviction was also used as the basis for the federal debarment of General. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 54.

       
       

    10. Mr. Wright and Mr. Majure were also debarred by virtue of their conduct in connection with the General conviction. Jt. Stips. Appen. at pp. 54- 59.

        
        

    11. General and MISSCO are affiliated companies. General is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MISSCO. MISSCO is directed and governed by its executive committee which acts in lieu of the board of directors. Mr. Majure was a director of MISSCO, a member of MISSCO'S executive committee, a senior vice president of MISSCO, and president, director, and general manager of General. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 59.

    12. Mr. Majure held a position of substantial responsibility in both MISSCO and General, and through MISSCO's control group is accountable for the circumstances of General's crime. Jt. Stips. Appen. at p. 60.

        
        

    13. A decision not to impose federal debarment on MISSCO was predicated on MISSCO management's decision to ensure that it did not supply the Federal government with the same goods and services formerly provided by General during the period of General's debarment: MISSCO management made a commitment to emphasize ethical business practices: the people responsible for General's crime were no longer employed by MISSCO: the GSA administrative record (with the exception of General) does not indicate a lack of business integrity or poor performance on federal contracts. Jt. Stips. Appen. at pp. 61-63.

        
        

    14. Federal debarment of General was predicated upon the following: conviction of the crime of making false statements posed a substantial risk to government business dealings: General submitted false information on solicitations over an extended period of time: General fabricated price lists and false certification son two prior solicitations: General's crime posed a substantial danger to the integrity of the Federal government's MAS program: the accountable individuals for the crime were high-ranking officials at General. Jt. Stips. Appen. at pp. 63-66.

        
        

    15. The federal debarment proceedings found mitigating factors in that: the parties pled guilty and cooperated with the Department of Justice throughout the investigation: the parties cooperated with GSA throughout the debarment proceedings: General was not charged with deliberate overcharges on its federal MAS contracts: General promptly paid its fine and restitution: General has made good faith efforts to undertake remedial action. Jt. Stips. Appen. at pp. 68-69.

    
    

13. On April 9, 1993, Respondent issued Notices of Intent pursuant to Section 287.133(3)(e)1, Florida Statutes, which were received by the Petitioners. Jt. Stips. p. 5, Appen. at pp. 72-73.

    
    

14. On April 13, 1993, Petitions filed petitions pursuant to Section 287.133(3)(e)2, Florida Statutes, and Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, requesting an order determining that it is not in the public interest for Petitioners to be placed on the State of Florida Convicted Vendor List. Jt. Stips. p. 5, Appen. at pp. 74-75.

    
    

15. MISSCO is a holding company which has a number of operating divisions and two wholly-owned subsidiary corporations, General Equipment Manufacturers (General) and MISSCO Exports Corporation (Exports). Jt. Stips. p. 2, Appen. at pp. 35-36.

    
    

16. Interstate of Florida is a Division of MISSCO and is a dealer (re- seller) of General's products. Jt. Stips. p. 2.

    
    

17. General and MISSCO are commercially distinguishable and they do not occupy the same facilities. MISSCO's primary lines of business are distribution of school equipment and supplies, office equipment and supplies, and commercial printing. Jt. Stips. p. 4.

    
    

18. MISSCO Exports is an entity formed solely for accounting and tax purposes, has no employees, and does not engage in substantive commercial operations. Jt. Stips. p. 4.

19. MISSCO has extensive dealings with the federal government, as supplier of goods manufactured by other entities. General is the only MISSCO entity that contracts with the government under the Multiple Awards Schedule (MAS) program. General's primary line of business is manufacturing institutional furniture.

    Jt. Stips. pp. 4-5.

    
    

20. In compliance with paragraphs 287.133(3)(a) and (B), Florida Statutes, MISSCO made timely notification to the DMS and provided details of the conviction of General, by letter dated March 24, 1992 and provided copies of the criminal information, judgement and related correspondence. Jt. Stips. p. 5, Appen. at pp. 37048.

    
    

21. Payment of the fine in the amount of $10,000 and restitution in the amount of $28,000 imposed by the conviction and judgement entered April 5, 1991 were promptly paid by General on April 15, 1991. Jt. Stips. pp. 5-6, Appen. at pp. 47-48.

    
    

22. Subsequent to the criminal information filed in the United States District court, Southern District of Mississippi in November of 1990, General entered a plea of guilty to the charge, thus eliminating the necessity for further investigation and trial. Jt. Stips. p. 6.

    
    

23. The GSA in its findings and determination dated May 18, 1992, cited mitigating factors favorable to General and MISSCO. The factors included, cooperation with the Department of Justice throughout its investigation; cooperation with the GSA throughout the debarment proceeding; constructive dealings by counsel for MISSCO and General with the GSA Office of General Counsel on issues relating to the restrictions on MISSCO and General's business relationship with the government and government prime contractors. Jt. Stips.

    p. 6, Appen. at pp. 68-69.

    
    

24. MISSCO fully cooperated with the DMS in connection with its investigation initiated pursuant to Section 287.133, Florida Statutes. Jt. Stips. p. 6.

    
    

25. MISSCO formally filed its disclosure pursuant to Section 287.133(3)(b), Florida Statutes with the DMS by letter dated March 24, 1992, together with exhibits attached thereto. The letter specifically referred to the criminal information filed against General and the judgement entered by the Federal District Court. A copy of the criminal information and judgement were enclosed with the letter, together with a copy of correspondence between MISSCO and the GSA. Jt. Stips. pp. 8-9, Appen. at pp. 37-39.

    
    

26. In response to a request dated April 15, 1992 from the DMS for additional information, MISSCO promptly furnished all such information. Jt. Stips. p. 9.

    
    

27. At its meeting held December 17, 1992, the Board of Directors of MISSCO was convened and all of the offices then held by Mr. James T. Majure, former President of General, were declared vacant and other persons were elected to those positions. Jt. Stips. p. 7, Appen. at pp. 2, 67, 70.

    
    

28. Mr. Charles Wright was retired from General under a medical disability prior to 1990. Jt. Stips. p. 7.

29. MISSCO Corporation fully cooperated with the GSA by proposing and implementing remedial measures including the presentation of an Ethics Seminar by Mr. Norman Roberts, past chairman of the American Bar Association's section on government contracting. Jt. Stips. p. 7.

    
    

30. MISSCO revised its corporate Code of Ethics, revised its Employee Handbook, installed an 800 hotline telephone number permitting employees to communicate any concerns regarding business ethics, designated a Corporate Vice President as the Ethics Compliance Officer, appointed a committee of three corporate executives to monitor corporate business activities, and revised its internal audit procedures to insure that no cash is unaccounted for which might be used for the purpose of kickbacks. Jt. Stips. pp. 7-8, Appen. at pp. 28-33, 62-63.

    
    

31. MISSCO's management undertook prompt and verifiable action to comply with the restrictions imposed on MISSCO's business dealings with the government after notices of proposed debarment. General promptly and voluntarily withdrew from the GSA contract that was tainted by the submission of a fabricated commercial price list during negotiations. Jt. Stips. p. 8.

    
    

32. MISSCO had a code of business ethics in place when the circumstances leading to General's conviction arose. The code was amended following the initiation of debarment proceedings to specifically address the importance of truthful certifications and providing accurate information in connection with business transactions with the government. Jt. Stips. p. 8.

    
    

33. MISSCO substantially expanded its corporate ethics compliance program and undertook extensive training in business ethics. A detailed "ethics audit" was undertaken by MISSCO, and the results of this audit were provided to the GSA. Jt. Stips. p. 8, Appen. at pp. 10-22, 28-34.

    
    

34. General sells its products through a dealer network and not through factory direct sales. General has a dealer agreement with Interstate of Florida for the sale of its products in Florida to private and public entities. Jt. Stips. p. 9.

    
    

35. Interstate of Florida, a division of MISSCO Corporation of Jackson, is a dealer (re-seller) of General's products. There are other dealers throughout the United States which also market and sell General's products. Interstate of Florida had gross sales of approximately $6.8 million in fiscal year 1990-91. Approximately 99 percent of those sales were to public entities. Jt. Stips. p. 9.

    
    

36. Interstate of Florida is primarily an educational sales company which sells educational contract furnishings such as laboratory casework, auditorium seating, and folding bleachers. It has conducted business with almost every school district in Florida. The largest transactions have been conducted with the school districts of Dade and Orange Counties in Florida. The largest municipal transactions have been conducted with the City of Tallahassee. Jt. Stips. p. 10.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

37. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter presented herein, pursuant to Section 120.57(1) and 287.13, Florida Statutes. The parties submitted a joint proposed order which states the agency's interpretation of the applicable statutes.

38. Section 287.133(3)(e)3.d, Florida Statutes, establishes "[p]rompt or voluntary payment of any damages or penalty as a result of the conviction" as a factor mitigating against placement on the convicted vendor list.

    
    

39. Section 287.133(3)(e)3.e, Florida Statutes, establishes "[c]ooperation with state or federal investigation or prosecution of any public entity crime" as a mitigating factor.

    
    

40. Section 287.133(3)(e)3.f, Florida Statutes, establishes "[d]isassociation from any other person or affiliate convicted of the public entity crime" as a mitigating factor.

    
    

41. Section 287.133(3)(e)3.g, Florida Statutes, establishes "[p]rior or future self-policing by the person or affiliate to prevent public entity crimes as a mitigating factor.

    
    

42. Subparagraph 287.133(3)(e)3.i., Florida Statutes, establishes "[c]ompliance by the person or affiliate with the notification provisions of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b)" as a mitigating factor.

    
    

43. Section 287.133(3)(e)3.j., Florida Statutes, establishes "[t]he needs of public entities for additional completion in the procurement of goods and services in their respective markets" as a mitigating factor.

    
    

44. Section 287.133(3)(e)4 provides in pertinent part:

    
    

    In any proceeding under this section, the department shall be required to prove that it is in the public interest for the person to whom it has given notice under this section to be placed on the convicted vendor list. Proof of a conviction of the person or that one is an affiliate of such person shall constitute a prima facie case that it is in the public interest for the person or affiliate to whom the department has given notice to be put on the convicted vendor list. Prompt payment of damages or posting of a bond, cooperation with investigation, and termination of the employment or other relationship with the employee or other natural person responsible for the public entity crime shall create a rebuttable presumption that is not in the public interest to place a person or affiliate on the convicted vendor list . . . If the hearing officer determines that the person was not convicted or is not an affiliate of such person, that person or affiliate shall not be placed on the convicted vendor list.

    
    

45. The Department has made a prima facie showing that is is in the public interest for Petitioners to be placed on the convicted vendor list based on the felony conviction of General and its affiliation with MISSCO and Interstate.

    
    

46. The facts contained in the Joint Stipulations of the parties show that Petitioner has promptly paid the fines imposed, has cooperated with the investigation of the public entity crimes, and has terminated employment of the individuals involved in the commission of the public entity crimes. Thus

    Petitioners have established a rebuttable presumption that it is not in the best interest of the public to place them on the convicted vendor list. No evidence was presented to overcome the presumption.

    
    

47. The facts contained in the Joint Stipulations of the parties show that Petitioners have established an active compliance program as a means to prevent public entity crimes.

    
    

48. Petitioners have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it is not in the best interest of the public to place them on the Florida Convicted Vendor List.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is,

RECOMMENDED: That the Department not place the names of the Petitioners on the Florida Convicted Vendor List.

DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida.

STEPHEN F. DEAN

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1993.

COPIES FURNISHED:

William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307

Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950

Susan B. Kirkland, Esquire Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309

Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950

C. Graham Carothers, Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee Carothers & Proctor

Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, FL 32392

Terry A. Stepp, Esquire Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309

Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

ALL PARTIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER. ALL AGENCIES ALLOW EACH PARTY AT LEAST 10 DAYS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS. YOU SHOULD CONTACT THE AGENCY THAT WILL ISSUE THE FINAL ORDER IN THIS CASE CONCERNING AGENCY RULES ON THE DEADLINE FOR FILING EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER. ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER SHOULD BE FILED WITH THE AGENCY THAT WILL ISSUE THE FINAL ORDER IN THIS CASE.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

GENERAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-2219CVL

) DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

) INTERSTATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-2220CVL

) DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

) MISSCO CORPORATION OF JACKSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-2221CVL

) DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

AMENDING FINAL ORDER

The caption of the Recommended Ofrder entered July 29, 1993, is amended to read FINAL ORDER pursuant to Section 287.133(3)(e)2.e, Florida Statutes.

DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida.

STEPHEN F. DEAN

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 1993.

COPIES FURNISHED:

William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307

Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950

Susan B. Kirkland, Esquire Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309

Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950

C. Graham Carothers, Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee Carothers & Proctor

Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, FL 32392

Terry A. Stepp, Esquire Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309

Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED, TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND A SECOND COPY, ACCOMPANIED BY FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, OR WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE PARTY RESIDES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.

Docket for Case No: 93-002219CVL

Orders for Case No: 93-002219CVL