The Issue Because he pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of soliciting a prostitute, Petitioner is disqualified from certain types of employment. He has requested an exemption from that disqualification, which request is the subject of this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Cervantes was born in Mexico, where he met his wife who was vacationing there. Mrs. Cervantes came to the United States from Puerto Rico in 1987; Mr. Cervantes came later, around 1990. Although he has attended school to learn English he still does not speak or understand English very well, as observed at the hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Cervantes have an 8-year old son. They have owned a day care center in Orlando, Florida, since 1995 and they worked together there until Mr. Cervantes' arrest and adjudication in 1997. Since then, he has been unemployed except for taking care of bookkeeping and after-hours maintenance of the day care center. On March 28, 1997, Mr. Cervantes was in his car on South Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando, Florida, at 1:00 a.m., returning home from his brother's house. His brother works late at a restaurant. When he was stopped at a light, a woman approached his car and said something he did not understand. He believed she might be in trouble and put the windows down to talk to her. The next thing that happened was the police came and arrested him and took him to jail. Mrs. Cervantes received a telephone call from her husband around 3:00 a.m. explaining that he had been arrested for soliciting a prostitute. She was shocked, as he had never been in trouble before and had been a good husband and father. Mr. Cervantes was charged with a violation of Section 796.07(2)(f), Florida Statutes, and was assigned a public defender with whom he consulted through an English interpreter. He initially pled not guilty to the charge but changed his plea to nolo contendere on the advice of his lawyer. The "prostitute" had been an undercover police officer and the conversation between her and Mr. Cervantes was recorded. What concerned the lawyer, according to what Mr. Cervantes understood, was that the conversation included Mr. Cervantes' word "todo" (all, in English). Whether that was thought to be a request for sex or a "blowjob" as stated in the police report, is not clear in this record. The public defender told Mr. Cervantes that he could go to jail. Because his own father had abandoned him when he was young, and because he never wanted to leave his own son, Mr. Cervantes changed his plea in return for a judgment of adjudication of guilt withheld. He was ordered to pay a $25.00 fine and court costs and fees, for a total of $191.25. Since he received the disqualification letter from DCFS Mr. Cervantes has been unable to work with his wife at the day care center. She needs him and he is genuinely contrite for getting mixed up in something that now prevents him from helping her. Mr. Cervantes has no criminal record except for the offense that is the subject of this proceeding. He studies and teaches Bible classes and helps out at the church. He also helps take care of his son.
Recommendation It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Luis Cervantes' request for exemption from disqualification be GRANTED by the Department of Children and Family Services. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Luis Cervantes 9037 Fort Jefferson Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32801 Carmen M. Sierra, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801 Samuel C. Chavers, Acting Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Conclusions THIS MATTER came before the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 420.57(2), Florida Statutes, on April 10, 2008, in Indialantic, Florida, for consideration of the Administrative Complaint (attached hereto as Exhibit A), in the above styled case. Petitioner has filed a Motion for Final Order. Petitioner was represented by Jeff Kelly, Esquire. Respondent was present. Upon consideration, the Board FINDS: 1. The Petitioner’s Motion is granted. 2. The material facts are not in dispute. 3. The allegations of fact set forth in the Administrative Complaint are approved, adopted, and incorporated herein by reference as the Board's Findings of Fact. 4. The conclusions of law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint are approved, adopted, and incorporated herein by reference as the conclusions of law of (A) Respondent is required to appear before the Probation Committee of the Board at such times as directed by the Board Office, approximately every six (6) months. Respondent's first probationary appearance requires a full day attendance at the Board meeting. In connection with each probation appearance, Respondent shall answer questions under oath. In addition, Respondent shall provide such other information or documentation as is requested by either the Petitioner, Department, the Board or the Probation Committee. Respondent shall forward said documentation to the Board:at least - 30 days in advance of the probation appearance or as otherwise directed. for 4 -(B) The burden shall be solely upon’ Respondent to remember the requirement for - said appearance and to take the necessary steps in advance of said appearance to contact the Board office and ascertain the specific time, date, and place of said appearance. Respondent shall not rely on notice of said appearance from the Board or the Department. (C) Should Respondent violate any condition of the probation, it shall be considered a violation of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and shall result in further disciplinary action by the Board. (D) Should the Respondent fail to make a satisfactory appearance as determined by the Board, the term of the probationary period shall automatically be extended by six (6) months. If there occurs a second such failure then the term of probationary period will be extended an additional year. Should the Board determine a third failure of the Respondent to make a satisfactory appearance, the stay of suspension of the Respondent's license to practice contracting shall be lifted and the license shall remain in suspended status unless and until a further stay is granted by the Board. (E) Should Respondent's license to practice contracting be suspended or otherwise placed on inactive status, the probation period shall be tolled during the period of the suspension or inactivity and shall resume running at the time the suspension is stayed or Respondent reactivates the license and Respondent shall serve the time remaining on the term of probation. . (F) To ensure successful completion of probation, Respondent's license to practice contracting shall be suspended for the period of probation, with the suspension stayed for the period of:probation. ‘The time-of the suspension and ‘the stay shall run concurrently” ~~ --with the period of probation. If Respondent-successfully completes probation, the’ »- - suspension shall terminate.’ If Respondent fails to comply with the requirements set forth in the Final Order imposed in this ‘case, or fails to make satisfactory appearances as determined by the Board, the stay shall be lifted. Once the stay is lifted, the license shall remain in suspended status unless and until a further stay is granted by the Board. 5. In addition, Respondent shall complete seven (7) additional credit hours of continuing education which must be related specifically to Chapter 489 and related rules, within this renewal period. The seven (7) hours ordered shail be in addition to the continuing education required by Rule 61G4-18.001, F.A.C. Proof of the seven (7) additional hours must be supplied directly to Executive Director of the Construction Industry Licensing Board at 1940 N. Monroe Street MS# N14, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1039. Failure to provide such proof direct to the Executive Director will result in a violation of this Order. 6. Achangein licensure status, including the suspension, revocation, voluntary relinquishment, or involuntary relinquishment of license does not relieve Respondent of the obligation to pay any fines, costs, interest or restitution imposed in this Order. This Final Order shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. DONE AND ORDERED this O; day of oe , 2008. RAYMOND R. HOLLOWAY, Chair Construction Industry Licensing Board
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Invarrary Retirement Center, Inc. (IRC), is licensed by petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), to operate an adult congregate living facility (ACLF). The facility operates under the name of Inverrary Retirement Center at 5811 Northwest 28th Street, Lauderhill, Florida. On or about April 4, 1984, two HRS inspectors performed a routine relicensure survey of IRC. The purpose of the survey was to determine whether IRC was complying with all HRS requirements relating to record keeping, sanitation, fire and safety. During the course of the survey, the inspectors noted the following violations of HRS rules: There was no staff member within the facility at all times who was certified in an approved first aid course (Rule 10A- 5.19(5)(f), F.A.C.); The facility failed to keep "current" records of self administered medication (Rule 10A-5.18(6)(f), F.A.C.); Menus were not planned and posted where they could be easily viewed by the residents (Rule 10A-5.20(1)(j), F.A.C.); The kitchen was not equipped with an approved exhaust hood over the stove (Rule 10A-5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); An electrical extension cord was used to service the coffee maker (Rule 10A- 5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); One of the buildings had an insufficient means of egress for the residents (Rule 10A- 5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); There were no manually operated fire alarms capable of being heard throughout the facility (Rule 10A-5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); Respondent failed to provide documenta- tion reflecting the smoke detectors were tested on a weekly basis (Rule 10A- 5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); and (j) There was a sliding bolt on an exit door on one of the buildings (Rule 10A- 5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.). All of the foregoing constituted a separated violation of HRS rules. 1/ When the survey was completed, the inspectors reviewed all violations with IRC's manager and advised her that a resurvey would be taken in about thirty days, and that all violations must either be corrected by that time, or some action instituted which reflected an intent on the part of the facility to correct the same. This was in accordance with HRS policy governing ACLFs, and approximated the time given other facilities to make similar corrections. On April 10, 1984, a Corrective Action Plan was issued by HRS and sent to IRC. This document set out in detail the various violations found in the April 4 inspection and set a compliance date of May 4, 1984 for all corrections to be made. A resurvey of IRC's facility was made by the same two HRS inspectors on May 18, 1984. With the exception of item (3)(h), which required documentation verifying that smoke detectors be tested weekly, the inspectors noted that no corrections had been made. However, respondent presented evidence that items (3)(b) and (3)(c) had indeed been corrected by that date and such evidence is deemed to be more persuasive than contrary evidence offered by HRS representatives. Further, the violation in item (3)(f), and turns on whether an HRS publication or the City of Lauderdale fire code was controlling when the inspection was made. Because no evidence was presented to establish which standard was in effect, the allegation that an HRS publication was violated must fail. Accordingly, it is found that IRC failed to timely correct items (3)(a), (3)(d), (3)(e), (3)(h), (3)(i), and (3)(j) as required by the Corrective Action Plan. Respondent eventually made all corrections, although not within the HRS imposed deadline. One of the deficiencies [item (3)(d) required extensive renovations, including bids and a city permit, which took considerable time to accomplish. However, IRC's manager neglected to provide HRS inspectors with any evidence on the May 18 visit showing that bids were being solicited, or that there was any "movement" on the project. The same is true for item (3)(g) which required competitive bids from suppliers. IRC also failed to advise HRS that it could not immediately enroll an employee in the Broward County First Aid Course [item (3)(a)] because of the large number of participants in the class. IRC failed to do so even though its manager had been told that an extension on the May 4 deadline could be obtained where IRC gave some evidence to the inspectors that action was being instituted to correct the deficiency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating agency rules as set forth in items (3)(a), (3)(d), (3)(e), (3)(h), (3)(i) and (3)(j) of the administrative complaint, and that a $900 administrative fine be imposed, to be paid within thirty days after the data of the final order rendered in this proceeding. All other charges should be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1985.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Elder Care Retirement Home violated certain statutes and rules as alleged in the administrative complaints, and if so, to what extent penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this matter, Eldercare, Inc. of Maine was appropriately licensed by the Department to operate a 20 bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF), Elder Care Retirement Home, in Ocala, Florida. Lon W. Walters and his wife are the sole owners of Eldercare, Inc. of Maine, the corporate entity which owns and operates Elder Care Retirement Home. Mr. Walters is president of the corporation. Case No. 89-2058 On December 9, 1987, Pat Reid, a Human Services Program Analyst and the authorized representative of the Department, performed a general inspection of Elder Care Retirement Home for purposes of re-licensure. Ms. Reid identified five operating deficiencies which she discussed with the administrator of the facility. Ms. Reid also established dates by which time corrections were required. A handwritten list of the alleged deficiencies was provided to the administrator of the facility. On December 17, 1987 a nutritional inspection was performed by Leota Spencer, a Senior Public Health Nutritionist for the Department. Ms. Spencer identified five alleged deficiencies requiring correction. Although Department witnesses testified that it is standard practice to advise the facility administrator of deficiencies at the time of the inspection, the evidence did not establish that Ms. Spencer, who did not testify, did so. On January 25, 1988, the Department issued a letter confirming the findings of the re-licensure surveys conducted by Ms. Reid and Ms. Spencer. Enclosed with the letter was a form "Classification of Deficiencies for ACLF Licensure Requirements," which noted the deficiencies, the correction deadlines, and included citation to the administrative rules allegedly violated by the deficiencies. Of the ten alleged deficiencies noted by the inspections, the deadlines for correction of seven deficiencies had already passed. The deadline for the remaining three was January 31, 1988, six days from the date of the letter. On February 18, 1988, Ms. Reid again inspected the facility to determine whether corrective action had been taken. Seven of the deficiencies had been corrected. Ms. Reid cited three which remained, including the lack of financial records available for review at the time of the inspection, the failure to indicate that all residents were free from communicable disease, and the failure to provide that a food management employee had completed a food service management course. On February 15, 1989, the Department issued an administrative complaint based upon the failure of the facility to correct the alleged deficiencies within the required time periods. The administrative complaint alleged that Eldercare "failed to provide or make available facility financial records for review at the time of the survey," in violation of Section 400.419(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10A- 5.021(1), Florida Administrative Code. The complaint states that such violation is cause for an administrative fine of $250. The evidence does not establish that the failure to make such records available at the time of a survey is a violation of administrative rule. Rule 10A-5.021(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the administrator or owner of a facility shall be responsible for maintaining fiscal records, and mandates the type of information which such records shall contain. The rule does not specifically require that the fiscal records must be maintained at the facility. The administrative complaint alleged that Eldercare "failed to ensure that all residents are free from communicable disease as evidenced by the physical examination (health assessment) of one resident identified as B. H. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease," in violation of Section 400.419(3)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10A- 5.0181(2)(a)4d, Florida Administrative Code. The complaint states that such violation is a Class III deficiency with a civil penalty of $150. Rule 10A-5.0181(2)(a)4d, Florida Administrative Code, provides that prior to admission to an ACLF, a prospective resident must be examined to ascertain that there are no signs of infectious disease present. The evidence indicates that the allegation of the administrative complaint is correct. There is no evidence which would suggest that the $150 penalty assessed by the Department is inappropriate. The administrative complaint alleged that Eldercare "has failed to ensure that a management person has completed the Food Services Management course," in violation of Section 400.419(3)(c) Florida Statutes, and Rules 10A- 5.020(1)(m) and 10D-13, Florida Administrative Code. The complaint states that such violation is a Class III deficiency with a civil penalty of $100. The failure of the Elder Care facility to employ management personnel who met the training requirement is a violation of administrative rule. However, because there is no evidence which establishes that the Department investigator discussed the violation with the Elder Care administrator, there is no evidence that the facility had notice of the violation prior to the letter of January 25, 1988, even though the "Classification of Deficiencies for ACLF Licensure Requirements" which was enclosed with the Department's letter of January 25, 1988, establishes January 16, 1988, as the deadline for correction. There is no evidence that an approved training course was available and scheduled so as to provide an Elder Care employee a timely opportunity to complete the course and satisfy the Department's requirement. Case No. 89-2059 On December 16, 1987, an authorized representative of the Department, Dick Kolb, a Fire Protection Specialist, performed a fire safety inspection of Elder Care Retirement Home. According to Mr. Kolb's survey, the facility lacked automatic door closers on bedroom doors and electrically-wired smoke detectors. At hearing, Mr. Kolb testified that the lack of automatic door closers and electrically-wired smoke detectors violates fire safety regulations. On the date of the inspection, Mr. Kolb discussed the deficiencies with the administrator of the facility. A handwritten list of deficiencies was provided to the administrator. Mr. Kolb and the administrator established a deadline of February 12, 1988, for correction of the situation. On January 25, 1988, the Department issued a letter reiterating the findings of the fire safety survey conducted by Mr. Kolb. Enclosed with the letter was a typewritten notice, (the "Classification of Deficiencies for ACLF Licensure Requirements"), which lists the deficiencies and related correction deadlines, and includes citation to the administrative rules allegedly violated by the deficiencies. On February 29, 1988, Mr. Kolb again inspected Elder Care Retirement Home. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether automatic closers had been installed on the bedroom doors and whether an electrically wired smoke detector system had been installed. Neither deficiency had been corrected. On February 15, 1989, the Department issued an administrative complaint based upon the failure of the facility to correct the alleged deficiencies within the required time periods. The administrative complaint alleged that Eldercare "failed to ensure that smoke detectors are electrically operated," in violation of Section 400.419(3)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10A-5.023(15)(a) and 4A-40.017, Florida Administrative Code. The complaint states that such violation is a Class III deficiency with a civil penalty of $200. The evidence does not establish that the lack of electrically operated smoke detectors constitutes a violation of the Department's rules. The Department has adopted the National Fire Protection Association standards by administrative rule, but such standards are neither specifically stated in the Florida Administrative Code nor were they introduced or admitted as evidence at hearing. The administrative complaint further alleged that Eldercare "failed to ensure that bedroom doors are equipped with self-closing devices" in violation of Section 400.419(3)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rules 10A-5.023(15)(a), 4A- 40.005 and 4A-40.010(8), Florida Administrative Code, and "Chapters 5-2.1.2.3 and 17-3.6.3 NFPA 101 LSC." The complaint states that such violation is a Class III deficiency with a civil penalty of $200. The evidence does not establish that the lack of the door closing devices constitutes a violation of the Department's rules. As stated supra, the Department has adopted the National Fire Protection Association standards by administrative rule, but such standards are neither included in the Florida Administrative Code nor were they introduced or admitted as evidence at hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order imposing against Eldercare, Inc. of Maine d/b/a Elder Care Retirement Center an administrative fine of $150 in Case No. 89-2058 and dismissing Case No. 89-2059. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 19th day of October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Lon W. Walters 5762 South West 60th Avenue Ocala, Florida 32674 Arthur R. Shell, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 3 Legal Office 1000 North East 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondents violated Sections 475.25(1)(e) and (b), Florida Statutes (1995),1 by failing to provide timely written notification to the Florida Real Estate Commission (the "Commission") of any good faith doubt as to whom funds in Respondents' escrow account should be disbursed; by engaging in fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust; and, if Respondents violated either or both statutes, what, if any, penalty should be imposed against Respondents' licenses.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the regulation and discipline of licensees in the state. Respondents are both licensed in the state. Respondent Carey is licensed as a real estate broker and holds license number 0577832. The last license was issued to Respondent Carey as a broker at Crescent Properties, Inc., 200 N. Denning Drive, Suite 2, Winter Park, Florida 32789-3762. Respondent Carey was licensed and operating as broker and officer of Respondent Crescent Properties, Inc. ("Crescent"). Crescent is registered as a real estate broker corporation and holds registration number 0577832. The last registration was issued to Crescent as a broker, Crescent Properties, Inc., 200 N. Denning Drive, Suite 2, Winter Park, Florida 32789-3762. On October 10, 1995, Respondents and Estrella Acosta entered into a property management agreement for a residence located at 563 Northbridge Drive, Altamonte Springs, Florida. The landlord agreed to pay Respondents half of the first month's rent for securing a tenant and 10 percent of all rent payments for managing the property. On December 16, 1995, Respondents, as Acosta's agent, leased the property to Victor and Maria Thompson (the "tenants"). The lease agreement provided in relevant part that: the tenants would pay a $735.00 security deposit and $735.00 a month in rent for 12 months; Crescent would act as the landlord's agent and would collect all funds due under the lease. The tenants paid the $735.00 security deposit to Respondents. Respondents placed the security deposit into the escrow account. However, the tenants paid monthly rent directly to the landlord. By letter dated January 31, 1996, Acosta advised Respondents that Acosta was terminating the property management agreement. The letter requested that Respondents release the $735.00 security deposit to Acosta. On February 12, 1996, Respondents mailed a letter to the tenants. The letter requested the tenants' consent to release the security deposit to Acosta. The tenants did not respond to the letter. Respondents did not know whether the tenants agreed to or objected to release the security deposit. Respondents continued to hold the security deposit in Respondents' escrow account. Respondent Carey sought advice from the legal hot line service made available by the local Realtor association. Respondent Carey was confused and erroneously believed that the hot line acted as an agent for the Commission. Respondents did not advise the Commission in writing that Respondents had a good faith doubt as to whom the security deposit should be disbursed. Respondents did not send the tenants a certified letter advising that the tenants must respond by a date certain or Respondents would disburse the security deposit to Acosta. Respondents did not institute one of the settlement procedures set forth in Section 475.25(1)(d)1 including a request that the Commission issue an escrow disbursement order. Respondents had a good faith doubt as to whom the security deposit should be disbursed. Respondents mailed Acosta a monthly accounting dated February 6, 1996, which stated in relevant part: SECURITY DEPOSIT: $735.00 IN DISPUTE AN ESCROW DISBURSEMENT ORDER HAS BEEN FILED. The reference to a disbursement order was not a misrepresentation. Respondent believed that she was undertaking the appropriate steps for a disbursement order by following the advice obtained on the hot line provided by the local Realtor association. On February 12, 1996, less than two weeks after the landlord advised Respondents that the landlord had terminated the lease, Acosta filed a complaint against Respondents with Petitioner. By letter dated February 26, 1996, Petitioner notified Respondent Carey of Acosta's complaint. Respondents did not know whether Acosta's termination of the lease was based on a default by the tenants or was itself a default by the landlord. Pursuant to the terms of the lease agreement, Respondents asserted an offset against the landlord for half of the first month's lease and 10 percent of the lease payments due for the 12 month lease term. In a letter to Acosta dated August 27, 1996, Respondents stated in relevant part: Per my conversation with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate: It has been determined that your claim against us was unwarranted and false . . . You have caused everyone us, DBPR, our attorney, a great deal of unwarranted lost time . . . .
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondents guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(e), not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), issuing a written reprimand to Respondents, and requiring Respondent Carey to complete seven hours of continuing education in one or more escrow management courses for real estate brokers. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 4889675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 6th day of January, 1998.
