STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 95-2722

)

BURLEY BRINKLEY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on September 28 and 29, 1995, in Clearwater, Florida, before Carolyn S. Holifield, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Keith B. Martin, Esquire

Assistant School Board Attorney Post Office Box 2942

Largo, Florida 34649-2940

For Respondent: B. Edwin Johnson, Esquire

1433 South Ft. Harrison Avenue, Suite C Clearwater, Florida 34616

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether cause exists for Petitioner's proposed termination of the Respondent's employment as a school bus driver for the alleged violation of the Drug-Free and Alcohol-Free Workplace policy.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated May 1, 1995, J. Howard Hinesley, Ed. D., Superintendent of Pinellas County School District, notified Respondent that he would be recommending that Respondent be dismissed from his employment with the school board. The letter stated that the recommendation was based on the fact that while on duty to perform safety sensitive functions, Respondent had a breath alcohol concentration greater than 0.04. The alleged act was in violation of School Board Policy 6GX52-5.27, Drug-Free and Alcohol-Free Workplace.

On June 8, 1995, Respondent requested a hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings. The case was initially assigned to J. Lawrence Johnston, but prior to the final hearing was transferred to the undersigned. Subsequent to filing initial charges, Petitioner filed a Motion To Amend Charge. The motion was based on a letter dated June 6, 1995, from J. Howard Hinesley to Respondent. The letter indicated that the charges were being amended to "include the fact that on October 17, 1994, you received a district reprimand

for your use of profanity in the work setting, your verbal intimidation, and inappropriate reaction toward a female coworker." On June 30, 1995, an Order Granting Leave To Amend was issued. However, before the hearing the parties stipulated that the latter charge would not be at issue in this proceeding.

At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of ten witnesses and introduced twelve exhibits into evidence. Respondent testified on his own behalf, called six witnesses, and introduced four exhibits into evidence.

The hearing was recorded but not transcribed. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the parties requested an extended period within which to file proposed recommended orders. Both parties timely filed Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law under the extended time schedule.

Explicit rulings on the proposed findings of fact contained in the parties' proposed recommended orders may be found in the attached Appendix to Recommended Order, Case No. 95-2722.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times material to this case, Respondent Burley Brinkley (Respondent) was employed as a bus driver by the Pinellas County School Board.

   
   

2. Respondent's responsibility as an employee of the School Board included transporting students to and from certain public schools in the Pinellas County School District.

   
   

3. On April 25, 1995, the Respondent reported for work at the Highpoint Bus Compound at 5:31 a.m. After completing his morning run, Respondent reported to the Walter Pownall Service Center (WPSC) to fuel buses. Respondent arrived at WPSC between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and worked there approximately two hours.

   
   

4. On April 25, 1995, Betty Henry, a school bus driver for Pinellas County School Board, observed Respondent at a fuel pump at WPSC between 9:10 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. While she was four or five feet from Respondent, Ms. Henry spoke to Respondent. At that time, Ms. Henry smelled beer on Respondent's breath.

   
   

5. Following her encounter with Respondent that morning, Ms. Henry went to her supervisor, and told her that "someone needed to check on" Respondent. Ms. Henry did not indicate to Ms. Reust that Respondent had "beer breath" or had been drinking. Ms. Henry has known Respondent for two or three years and considers him a friend. Often in the past when Ms. Henry and Respondent saw each other, she greeted him with a hug. However, prior to April 25, 1995, Ms. Henry had never smelled "beer breath" coming from Respondent.

   
   

6. On April 25, 1995, between 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., Robert Wilhoite, a school bus driver for Pinellas County School District, observed the Respondent at the WPSC at the fuel pump island. At the time the Respondent was standing near a yellow post talking with another person. Mr. Wilhoite walked past Respondent and the other person and exchanged greetings. At this time Mr. Wilhoite, who was approximately three feet away from the Respondent and the other person, smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage, "like beer." Mr. Wilhoite could not tell whether the odor was emanating from the Respondent or the other person. However, Mr. Wilhoite did observe that Respondent's face was red. A short time later Mr. Wilhoite reported his observation to Joe Minshall, bus service coordinator at WPSC.

7. On April 25, 1995, Randy Kuester, a school bus driver for the Pinellas County School District, arrived at the fuel dock between 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. Between 9:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., Mr. Kuester went into the coffee room to get a cup of coffee. At that time, the Respondent was the only other person in the coffee room. While in the coffee room, Mr. Kuester detected the smell of alcohol. Although Mr. Kuester was unsure of the source of the alcohol odor, the closer he got to Respondent, the stronger the odor got. Mr. Kuester was in the coffee room for two or three minutes and during that time talked to Respondent briefly. During this period, Mr. Kuester observed that Respondent's eyes appeared glassy and bloodshot. Later that morning while still at the fuel dock, Mr. Kuester observed Respondent boarding the steps to Respondent's bus, and noticed that the Respondent climbed the steps very carefully as though "stepping on ice." Mr. Kuester was with Respondent a total of fifteen to thirty minutes at the service center. Based on Mr. Kuester's observations, Respondent appeared to be intoxicated.

   
   

8. Joseph Minshall, the bus service coordinator at WPSC, is responsible for supervising Respondent while he works at the WPSC. On the morning of April 25, 1995, Mr. Minshall saw the Respondent in his office. Mr. Minshall and Respondent spoke briefly to one another. As they spoke, Mr. Minshall detected the smell of alcohol on Respondent's breath. During the conversation, Respondent was approximately two to three feet from Mr. Minshall. Mr. Minshall also observed that Respondent's eyes were glassy.

   
   

9. Shortly after Mr. Minshall's personal observation of Respondent on the morning of April 25, 1995, Mr. Wilhoite and Mr. Kuester informed him that earlier that morning they had smelled alcohol or "booze" on the Respondent.

   
   

10. After Mr. Kuester and Mr. Wilhoite reported their observations to him, Mr. Minshall spoke to Henry Perry, the vehicle maintenance coordinator at the WPSC. Mr. Minshall informed Mr. Perry that he and two bus drivers detected the smell of alcohol on Respondent.

    
    

11. After receiving the above information from Mr. Minshall regarding the alcohol odor on Respondent, Mr. Perry immediately telephoned the transportation office. Mr. Perry attempted to speak to Susan Collins, acting transportation director, Richard Rothberg, acting assistant transportation director, and Al Glenn, transportation supervisor for Area II and Respondent's immediate supervisor. After being informed that all three of these individuals were in a meeting, Mr. Perry left a message about the reason for his call.

    
    

12. Later that morning, Mr. Rothberg, who was then supervisor of routing, returned Mr. Perry's telephone call. At that time, Mr. Perry informed Mr. Rothberg of the observations regarding Respondent that were noted by Mr. Minshall, Mr. Kuester, and Mr. Wilhoite. After his conversation with Mr. Perry, about 11:00 a.m., Mr. Rothberg notified Mr. Glenn of the concern regarding Respondent's smelling like alcohol.

    
    

13. At approximately 11:10 a.m. on April 25, 1995, Mr. Glenn and Mr. Rothberg drove together to an address which they believed to be the residence of Respondent in an effort to locate Respondent. When they arrived at the apartment, there was no answer. Mr. Glenn and Mr. Rothberg then proceeded to the High- point Bus Compound in an attempt to find Respondent. After arriving at the Highpoint Bus Compound, Mr. Glenn and Mr. Rothberg determined that

    Respondent was not there. Mr. Glenn then drove to WPSC, where he dropped off Mr. Rothberg. Mr. Glenn then returned to Highpoint Bus Compound to continue his search for Respondent.

    
    

14. Between 11:00 and 11:15 a.m. on April 25, 1995, Respondent left the WPSC and drove to his apartment where he changed his shirt. While at his apartment, he used no mouthwash and consumed no cold medication. After leaving his apartment, Respondent drove to the home of a friend, Kay Caldwell, where he ate lunch. During his lunch, Respondent drank ice tea. While at Ms. Caldwell's for lunch, Respondent used mouthwash, but did not consume any cold medication.

    
    

15. At approximately 1:05 p.m. on April 25, 1995, after eating lunch, Respondent left Ms. Caldwell's house and began his afternoon route to Lakewood High School. While Respondent was in route to Lakewood High School, he was called on the wireless radio by Ray Wise, the bus service recorder at the Highpoint Bus Compound, who directed him to return to the Highpoint Bus Compound. Respondent indicated that he would be late picking up students at Lakewood High School that afternoon if he returned to the Highpoint Bus Compound.

    
    

16. At the time Respondent received the initial radio transmission, he was driving his bus in the vicinity of Ulmerton Road and Highway 19. At some point during the radio transmission, Respondent lost radio contact with Ray Wise, after-which another school bus driver began relaying messages between Mr. Wise or Mr. Glenn and Respondent. The message relayed to Respondent from the other bus driver was that the Respondent was to return to the Highpoint Compound. Although he remained concerned about being late for his afternoon run, when instructed by Mr. Glenn to return to the Highpoint Compound, Respondent complied.

    
    

17. Respondent returned to the Highpoint Bus Compound between 1:15 and 1:30 p.m. Upon his arrival, Respondent was told by Ray Wise that Al Glenn wanted to see him. Respondent then proceeded to Mr. Glenn's office where both Mr. Glenn and Henry Perry were present. Al Glenn had previously requested that Mr. Perry sit in the meeting as an observer.

    
    

18. When Respondent entered Mr. Glenn's office, Mr. Glenn observed that the Respondent smelled like alcohol and was "red-faced." Mr. Perry also noticed that Respondent "smelled like he had been drinking alcohol."

    
    

19. During this meeting in Mr. Glenn's office, Respondent was informed of the reason he was directed to return to the Highpoint Bus Compound. The reason was that several individuals at the WPSC had reported smelling alcohol on the Respondent's breath and/or about his person. Initially, Respondent indicated that Mr. Glenn must be joking. However, during his discussion with Mr. Glenn, Respondent explained that he had been out with Kaye Caldwell and other friends until approximately 10:30 p.m. the night before. Respondent admitted that while out with his friends the night before, he drank between five and six beers, but denied drinking any alcoholic beverages on April 25, 1995.

    
    

20. Neither Mr. Wilhoite, Ms. Henry, Mr. Kuester, Mr. Minshall, Mr. Perry nor Mr. Glenn noted or observed any cold symptoms with respect to Respondent. The Respondent did not inform any of the above persons that he had taken any type of cold medication on April 25, 1995.

    
    

21. Both Mr. Glenn and Mr. Perry completed an Incident Report Form regarding the Respondent. These forms were completed by Mr. Glenn and Mr. Perry

    on April 25, 1995, after they met with Respondent, but prior to taking him to the testing center. According to the form, it is "to be completed by each supervisor as a guideline for the determination to order a drug and/or alcohol test for an employee when probable cause exists to test...." One part of the Incident Report Form, entitled Observations of Employee's Physical Condition," contains a list of several specific and observable conditions. Individuals completing the form are to "check any and all" conditions that apply to the employee who is the subject of the Incident Report Form.

    
    

22. On the Incident Report Form completed by Mr. Perry, he noted that his observations of the Respondent's physical condition were 1) odor of alcohol on breath or person and 2) glassy eyes. The form completed by Mr. Glenn indicated that his observations of Respondent's condition were that Respondent had slurred speech and the odor of alcohol on breath or person.

    
    

23. After observing the Respondent and meeting with him, both Mr. Glenn and Mr. Perry determined that there was reasonable suspicion that Respondent was under the influence of a drug or alcohol while on duty and needed to be tested. Respondent was a safety sensitive employee pursuant to School Board Policy 5.27, and as such was subject to drug screening and confirmation tests upon a determination of reasonable suspicion

    
    

24. Mr. Glenn completed and signed a Notification of Testing Form indicating that he had presented the notification of testing to Respondent. The same form was signed by Respondent in the space provided to indicate that "notification has been received and I consent to participate in this testing as required." The date and time indicated next to each signature was April 25, 1995, and 1:45 p.m.

    
    

25. Mr. Glenn and Mr. Perry escorted Respondent to the testing site located at Corning Clinical Laboratories (Corning Laboratories), 2150 49th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida. Mr. Glenn and Mr. Perry waited in the lobby while Respondent underwent a breath alcohol test and a drug urinalysis.

    
    

26. On April 25, 1995, Nasser Montavasseli was employed as a supervisor/technician at Corning Laboratories. Eileen Knight was as a technician at Corning Laboratories. Prior to that date, both Mr. Montavasseli and Ms. Knight received certification of completion of training on the Alco- Analyzer 2100 operations and the procedures outlined in 49 CFR Part 40.

    
    

27. Ms. Knight began working at Corning Laboratories on February 28, 1995, as a laboratory technician. Ms. Knight was trained as a breath alcohol technician (BAT) on April 4, 1995. Having completed the training, Ms. Knight was certified to perform breath alcohol tests.

    
    

28. Nasser Montavasseli has been employed by Corning Laboratories for 8 years and currently serves as a supervisor/technician. Mr. Montavasseli has twenty years of experience working in laboratories performing various kinds of tests. The course he took to qualify as a breath analysis technician included how to put the machine together, how to perform calibration and how to perform the breath alcohol test.

    
    

29. One of Mr. Montavasseli responsibilities at Corning Laboratories was to inspect the Alco-Analyzer 2100 every morning to ensure that it was calibrated. He personally performed all calibrations to make sure that it was done correctly. The machine is not used if it is not calibrated. On the

    morning of April 25, 1995, Mr. Montavasseli inspected the Alco-Analyzer 2100 and determined that it was properly calibrated.

    
    

30. At Corning Laboratories, the Alco-Analyzer 2100 is the machine used to conduct the breath alcohol testing. The Alco-Analyzer 2100 meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 40 of providing quantitative data of alcohol concentration. The Alco-Analyzer 2100 uses a closed system and uses helium as its internal standard carrier gas to continuously purge its sample loop. As a result, the Alco-Analyzer 2100 operates in a manner that is consistent with the intent of conducting an "air blank" in conjunction with the confirmation breath alcohol test.

    
    

31. Prior to April 25, 1995, the Alco-Analyzer 2100 was last externally calibrated on February 22, 1995. At that time the calibration of the Alco- Analyzer 2100 was valid. The next external calibration performed after April 25, 1995, was also valid.

    
    

32. On April 25, 1995, at approximately 2:32 p.m., Eileen Knight performed the initial screening breath alcohol test on Respondent. In performing the test, Ms. Knight followed the procedures prescribed for performing a breath alcohol analysis on the Alco-Analyzer 2100 and in accordance with 49 CFR Part

40. The screening test result was .217.

33. Ms. Knight informed Respondent that the initial screening test was greater than 0.020 and that he needed to complete a confirmation test. At approximately 2:52 p.m., Ms. Knight performed the confirmation breath alcohol test according to the prescribed procedures. The confirmation test result was

.222.

1. After Ms. Knight concluded the breath alcohol testing, she advised Respondent to that he needed to provide a urine sample. He left the testing area and went to the men's room on two separate occasions. After several minutes, Respondent returned to the testing area with a urine sample. Ms. Knight did not accompany Respondent to the men's room and did not personally observe where the sample came from. Eventually, the urine sample provided by Respondent tested negative for drugs.

   
   

2. Ms. Knight gave Respondent a copy of the two breath alcohol test results and informed him that he was over the legal limit. A copy of the test results was faxed to Max Loden, Supervisor of Supporting Personnel and Coordinator of the Drug-Free and Alcohol-Free Program of the Pinellas County School Board. Respondent informed Mr. Glenn and Mr. Perry that he failed the breath alcohol test and showed them the test results.

   
   

3. After leaving the Corning Laboratories, Respondent, Mr. Glenn, and Mr. Perry went to Richard Rothberg's office. When Respondent entered Mr. Rothberg's office, the smell of alcohol was prevalent. Mr. Rothberg determined the odor of alcohol was coming from Respondent. Respondent provided Mr. Rothberg a copy of the breath alcohol test results.

   
   

4. As Respondent was leaving Mr. Rothberg's office, he stated that he was sorry to have put everyone through this and that he had "really screwed up."

   
   

5. On March 14, 1995, the Pinellas County School Board adopted School Board Policy 6GX52 -5.27, entitled Drug-Free and Alcohol-Free Workplace. That policy states that Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 40 requires all employees of the Pinellas County School District as of January 1,

   1995, who are required to hold a commercial driver's license and who perform safety sensitive functions shall be subject to drug urinalysis testing and breath alcohol testing, including "reasonable suspicion testing."

   
   

6. Reasonable suspicion testing occurs when a covered employee's conduct or appearance is directly observed as indicative of being under the influence of a drug or alcohol during on-duty time. Covered employees include persons who operate vehicles designed to transport more than 15 persons. Respondent, as a school bus driver, is a covered employee.

   
   

7. On January 1995, Respondent received educational materials explaining the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act and the Pinellas County School Board's policies and procedures with respect to meeting these requirements.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

8. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

   
   

9. The Pinellas County School Board is given the authority under Section 230.23(5)(f), Florida Statutes, to provide for the discipline of all employees. Under the authority of Section 230.22(2), Florida Statutes, the Pinellas County School Board adopted School Board Policy 6GX52.527, entitled Drug-Free and Alcohol-Free Workplace.

   
   

10. In order to prevail, the Pinellas County School Board is required to prove the charges against Respondent by a preponderance of the evidence. Allen

    v. School Board of Dade County, 571 So.2d 568 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990); Dileo v. School Board of Dade County, 569 So.2d 883 (FLA. 3rd DCA 1990). It has the burden to show that Respondent's actions were in violation of School Board Policy 6GX52-5.27.

    
    

11. The policy prohibits any employee who is required to hold a commercial driver's license and perform safety sensitive functions from reporting for duty or remaining on duty to perform safety sensitive functions while having a breath alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater. School Board Policy 6GX52.527(1) also provides that violation of the policy shall result in disciplinary action up to and including termination and referral for prosecution.

    
    

12. The Respondent is charged with violation of School Board Policy 6GX52-

    5.27 by reporting for duty to perform safety sensitive functions while having a breath alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater.

    
    

13. The Pinellas County School Board has met its burden in this case. The preponderance of credible evidence shows that on April 25, 1995, when Respondent reported for duty to perform safety sensitive functions, transporting students to and from school, he had a blood alcohol concentration greater than 0.04.

    
    

14. 49 CFR ss. 40.79 sets forth the seven circumstances which must occur to invalidate a breath alcohol test. In the instant case, none of the essential conditions occurred. Therefore, the blood alcohol test results of Respondent are deemed valid.

    
    

15. The action of Respondent was a violation of School Board Policy 6GX52- 5.27(3)(b). In this case, the Respondent's violation of the policy greatly

impairs his effectiveness as a school bus driver. Such a serious infraction by Respondent warrants his dismissal.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Burley Brinkley.

RECOMMENDED this 29th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.

CARLOYN S. HOLIFIELD, 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 December, 1995.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2722

To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact:

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact.

1. Accepted and incorporated.

2. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 3-4. Accepted and incorporated.

5-8. Accepted.

9-18. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.

19. Accepted.

20-44. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact.

1. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.

2. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.

3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary, except last sentence rejected as not supported by competent and substantial evidence.

4. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.

5. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Last sentence rejected not supported by competent and substantial evidence.

6. Rejected as argument.

7-10. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not

subordinate or unnecessary.

1. Accepted.

2. Rejected as contrary to facts found and the greater weight of the evidence.

13-17. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.

1. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary except the fifth sentence is rejected as not supported by competent and substantial evidence.

2. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary except the last sentence is rejected as argument.

3. Accepted but subordinate to result reached.

4. Rejected as argument.

22-23. Accepted.

24-31. Accepted and incorporated to extent not subordinate or unnecessary.

32-33. Subordinate to result reached.

34-37. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.

1. Subordinate to result reached.

2. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary; last sentence rejected as not supported by competent and substantial evidence.

40-41. Accepted and incorporated.

1. Rejected as not supported by competent and substantial evidence.

2. Subordinate to result reached.

3. Rejected as contrary to facts found and the greater weight of the evidence.

4. Accepted, except second sentence is rejected as subordinate to result reached.

5. Accepted and incorporated to the extent notsubordinate or unnecessary, except reference to "screening" test rejected as not supported by facts and weight of evidence, and reference to violation of rules is rejected as argument and not supported by competent and substantial evidence.

6. Accepted and incorporated except last sentence rejected as argument.

48-49. Subordinate to result reached.

50-51. Rejected as contrary to the facts and weight of evidence.

52. Accepted.

53-55. Subordinate to result reached.

1. Rejected as argument.

2. Rejected as contrary to facts and weight of evidence.

3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary; last two sentences rejected as argument and contrary to facts and weight of evidence.

59-71. Subordinate to result reached.

72-73. Rejected as contrary to facts and weight of evidence.

1. Rejected as argument.

2. Rejected as contrary to facts and weight of evidence. 76-77. Rejected as not supported by competent and substantial

evidence.

78. Rejected as contrary to facts; last sentence rejected as argument.

79-81. Subordinate to result reached.

1. Rejected as argument and contrary to facts as to reference to Mr. Motavasseli; rejected as subordinate to result reached as to reference to Ms. Knight.

2. Subordinate to result reached.

3. Accepted as to first sentence; remainder ofparagraph rejected as argument or not supported by competent and substantial evidence.

85-87. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.

88-93. Rejected as argument.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Keith B. Martin, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney Post Office Box 2942

Largo, Florida 34649-2940

B. Edwin Johnson, Esquire

1433 South Ft. Harrison Avenue, Suite C Clearwater, Florida 34616

Dr. J. Howard Hinesley

School Board of Pinellas County

301 Fourth Street SW Largo, Florida 34640-2942

Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol

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. Some agencies allow a larger period within 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.

Docket for Case No: 95-002722

Orders for Case No: 95-002722