Findings Of Fact Respondent Yazgi has an ownership interest in respondent Stop N Shop and is the only individual named on respondent Stop N Shop's license. Respondent Yazgi has a one-third interest in a different store at a different location in Jacksonville, which is also called Stop N Shop. Sometime before noon on October 15, 1976, Mr. Yazgi took one carton of Winston menthol cigarettes and one carton of Silver Thin cigarettes from this second store and transferred them to respondent Stop N Shop where they were offered for resale and where petitioner's agents discovered them, except for one package which was missing. The store from which respondent took the cigarettes is not a licensed cigarette wholesaler.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner impose a civil penalty against respondent in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00) DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Tom Yazgi c/o Stop N Shop 2039 West 12th Street Jacksonville, Florida Mr. J. M. Ogonowski District 3 Department of Business Regulation 1934 Beachway Road Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Mr. Francis Bayley, Esquire Department of Business Regulation Legal Section Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Alton Beverages, Inc., trading as Mayflower Lounge, holds Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco License Number 23-2043, Series 4- COP. Respondent conducts its business pursuant to said license at 17IG Alton Road, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. At all times material hereto Sam Rosen was the sole corporate officer and shareholder of Alton Beverages, Inc. In addition, at all times material to this proceeding, Robert L. Pyle was the night manager for Respondent's licensed premises at the aforementioned address. During the time periods alleged in the Notice to Show Cause, that is, from February 21, 1981 through March 7, 1981, Dottie Turner, Laura Kimberly, Mona Castro, Sandra Timmsen and Deborah Sutcliff were dancers at the licensed premises, and were "agents" of Respondent. In the early morning hours of February 21, 1981, an undercover officer in Petitioner's employ was introduced by a confidential informant to Robert L. Pyle, the night manager on duty at Respondent's licensed premises. Shortly after that introduction, the undercover officer purchased a quantity of cocaine from Pyle for $50.00, the sale and delivery of which substance took place on the licensed premises, while Pyle and the officer were seated at a table in the lounge portion of the premises. During the evening hours of February 21, 1981, Petitioner's undercover officer returned to the licensed premises. While seated at a table with Dottie Turner, a topless dancer in the employ of Respondent, Turner mentioned to the undercover officer that she was going outside "to smoke a joint." Thereupon, the undercover officer asked if he could purchase a "joint" from her, and she advised that she would "roll one" for him for one dollar. Thereafter, Turner went outside the licensed premises, subsequently returned to the table, and gave one marijuana cigarette to the undercover officer in exchange for one dollar. Later on the evening of February 21, 1981, the undercover officer made a second purchase of cocaine for $50.00 from Pyle, Respondent's night manager. Again, the purchase ant exchange of this cocaine took place on the licensed promises while the officer and Pyle were seated at a table in the bar. While still in the licensed premises on February 21, 1981, the undercover officer asked for, and obtained, a second marijuana cigarette from dancer Dottie Turner at no cost. On February 23, 1981 the undercover officer again returned to the licensed premises where he spoke with Dottie Turner. On this occasion another purchase of a marijuana cigarette for one dollar from Dottie Turner was accomplished, with the negotiation for and delivery of the cigarette occurring on the licensed premises. After delivery of the marijuana cigarette, the undercover officer inquired of Turner concerning the purchase of a larger quantity of marijuana. The undercover officer was advised by Turner that if he would give her the money for an ounce of marijuana she could purchase it for him and bring it to the licensed premises for delivery. When the undercover officer refused to part with the money prior to delivery, Turner advised him that he would have to come to her apartment to make the purchase. Subsequently, on February 25, 1981, the undercover officer went to Turner's apartment, some distance from the licensed premises, and purchased one ounce of marijuana for $30.00. On February 25, 1981, the undercover officer returned to the licensed premises. On this date, he met with Robert L. Pyle, the night manager, and requested to purchase one quarter-ounce of cocaine. While the undercover officer and Pyle were seated in the Manager's office on the licensed premises, Pyle advised the undercover officer that he could arrange the purchase of that amount of cocaine for $500.00. Pyle further advised the undercover officer that he would have to go upstairs to get the cocaine and would return shortly. Thereupon both the undercover officer and Pyle left the Manager's office, and the undercover officer resumed a seat in the lounge portion of the licensed premises. Shortly thereafter, Pyle returned, and, while seated at a table with the undercover officer and Deborah Sutcliff, one of Respondent's topless dancers, exchanged with the undercover officer the one quarter-ounce of cocaine for $500.00 in currency. As previously indicated, the address of the licensed premises is 1716 Alton Road, Miami Beach. This address consists of the first floor of a two- story concrete block structure. The first floor is leased by Respondent from the building owner, Sam Berlin. The second floor of the structure was leased from the building owner by Robert L. Pyle, the night manager, and several of the dancers and other employees of Respondent for use as apartments. At all times material hereto, access to the apartments on the second floor could be had either by way of an exterior stairway in the rear of the building, or through a door in the interior of the licensed premises opening on an interior stairway. This interior door was used frequently by the dancers to access their apartments, and was used by Pyle on at least one of the occasions when the undercover officer purchased cocaine as hereinabove described. The sketch appearing on or attached to Respondent's license does not show the second floor of the two-story structure as being contained within the licensed premises and, indeed, does not show the interior door giving access to the second floor, although the record in this proceeding establishes that the door was present when Petitioner's agent made the sketch of the premises to attach to Respondent's license. There is no showing in this record that the interior door and stairway were ever used by anyone other than persons making their residence on the second floor. The upstairs portion of the building was never used for storage or for any other purpose connected with the operation of the licensed premises. Finally, there is no showing in this record that Respondent bad, or attempted to exercise, any dominion or control over the second floor of the building. On March 7, 1981, pursuant to a search warrant, law enforcement officers, including Petitioner's undercover officer, conducted a raid of the licensed premises. One of Respondent's dancers was found to be in possession of in excess of 10 grams of cocaine in her purse on the licensed premises. In addition, a quantity of marijuana was found near the bar and a yellow change purse containing a cocaine kit and spoon were found in the Manager's office. In the upstairs area where several of Respondent's employees lived, another of Respondent's dancers was found to be in possession of a controlled substance, Diazepam, and a bartender In Respondent's employ was found to be in possession of Diazepam as well as a small quantity of marijuana. Still another dancer was found to be in possession of a quantity of marijuana in her apartment, while Robert Pyle's bedroom in the upstairs area contained Diazepam and assorted narcotics paraphernalia including a cocaine user's kit, knives and scales. In addition, in the general living area of the upstairs, there was assorted narcotics paraphernalia including large heating elements; boxes and plastic jugs and bags containing different cocaine cutting agents such as procaine; an automatic plastic wrapping machine; a large-size scale; test tubes; and two bags containing cocaine. Respondent does not deny that the aforementioned activities occurred, but instead defends against the allegations or the Notice to Show Cause, as amended, by contending that the corporate licensee, through its sole officer and shareholder, Sam Hill Rosen, took every reasonable precaution to guard against such activity occurring on the premises. Respondent contends, Petitioner admits, and the record herein clearly establishes that Mr. Rosen was not "directly involved" nor did he have personal knowledge of the activities occurring on the licensed premises. Respondent asserts that in an attempt to prevent legal activity from occurring on the licensed premises, it posted signs in conspicuous places, such as the dancers' dressing room, and gave written instructions to employees announcing its policy of prohibiting drugs, other than prescription drugs, from being used or sold on the licensed premises. Violation of this employment policy, according to Respondent, resulted, on occasion, in immediate dismissal of employees. Additional Policies allegedly adopted by Respondent to guard against illegal activity included prohibiting dancers from leaving the licensed premises to go outside while they were working, and subjecting all employees to periodic "shakedown searches". There was also some indication in the record that Respondent reserved the right to subject its employees to polygraph tests. Finally, Respondent also asserts that, acting through its principal, Mr. Rosen, the premises was periodically checked while Mr. Pyle was on duty to assure that no violations of law were occurring. Accepting Respondent's representation that the aforementioned policies were established on the premises, the record in this proceeding clearly establishes that to the extent that these policies did exist they were more honored in the breach than in the observance. For example, of those employees of Respondent who were called to testify at the final hearing in this proceeding, none of them had been administered a polygraph examination, none had had their persons or belongings searched while working on the licensed premises, and they had observed Mr. Rosen on the premises during the evening hours at best "infrequently". Mr. Rosen's failure to adequately supervise the licensed premises is corroborated by the fact that on February 23, 1981, when Petitioner's undercover officer was on the licensed premises, Mr. Pyle, the night manager, was off duty, and Mr. Rosen, who managed the licensed premises during other portions of the day, was not present. In addition, on at least one occasion, one of Respondent's dancers observed Pyle on the licensed premises in possession of both cocaine and pep pills, the latter of which, according to Pyle, were used in case ". . . some of the girls came into work and weren't quite up to doing their performance." The record in this proceeding fails to establish that any agent, employee or patron of Respondent was ever observed using illegal drugs or narcotics inside the licensed premises. In addition, the record clearly establishes that Respondent has never previously been cited by and law enforcement agency, regulatory or governmental body for narcotics law violations of any nature. Both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer in this proceeding. To the extent that those findings of fact have not been incorporated in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as either being irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of alleged unlawful sale of an alcoholic beverage and cigarettes to a minor.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, the Respondent held license number 23-12104, series 2-APS, authorizing it to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of New Hialeah Supermarket, located at 3201 East 4th Avenue, Hialeah, Dade County, Florida (hereinafter "the licensed premises"). Aleya Ribhi Maali (hereinafter "Maali") is the sole corporate officer and shareholder of the respondent corporation. On September 24, 1996, Special Agents Spayd, Smith, and Delmonte conducted random tests of alcoholic beverage licensees' compliance with laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21 and tobacco to persons under the age of 18. On September 24, 1996, Investigative Aide C. R.2 entered the licensed premises in furtherance of the above referenced investigation. C. R.'s date of birth is August 15, 1979. She was 17 years of age at all times relevant to these proceedings. C. R. selected a can of Budweiser beer from the back of the store. She then approached Maali at the cash register counter and asked her for a pack of Marlboro cigarettes. Maali handed C. R. the pack of cigarettes which she had retrieved from the display behind the register counter. Respondent proceeded to sell C. R. the can of Budweiser beer and the Marlboro cigarettes. Maali did not request to see any identification as proof of legal age, nor did she ask C. R. her age. Maali was questioned by Agents Delmonte and Smith. Maali admitted that she had not been paying attention to what she had been doing. She said that she had been working in the store since 8:00 a.m. At the formal hearing she testified that the sale to C. R. was a consequence of being tired and confused because of the long work day. She testified that at the time of the sale she had been thinking about going home to make dinner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the two unlawful sales charged and imposing a penalty consisting of a 7-day license suspension and administrative fines in the total amount of $1,500.00 DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1997.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent’s alcoholic beverage license for the premises located at 11441 Osceola Drive in New Port Richey, Florida, should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Action filed in this matter.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, was the state agency charged with the responsibility to license and regulate the sales of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products in Florida. Respondent, D & S Cleaning Services, Inc., operated the Golden Acres Market #2 at 11441 Osceola Drive in New Port Richey, Florida, under 2-APS license number 61-00306. Pursuant to a request from the Food and Drug Administration, Special Agent Freese set up a random compliance check of the Respondent’s facility for sales of tobacco products to minors. This is routinely done as the result of an ongoing practice whereby FDA requests the Division to check specific business establishments. On the day in question, of the list of places to be checked, the majority were in Pasco County. On Saturday, October 11, 1997, working with an investigative aide, Mr. Teller, who was fifteen years old at the time, Special Agent Freese conducted a controlled buy at the Respondent’s facility. Freese briefed Teller before sending him into Respondent’s store, and also searched him to ensure he had no cigarettes, false identification, or other contraband on him. Freese then instructed Teller to go into the store and attempt to buy a package of cigarettes from whomever was on duty inside. Teller was to make no gratuitous representations about his age, and if asked for identification, was to be truthful. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on the day in question, Teller entered Respondent’s store, with Freese following shortly thereafter. According to Freese, the store is a typical convenience store. No customers were inside at the time. From fifteen to twenty feet away, Freese observed Teller approach Ms. Sargeant, who was manning the register, and ask for a package of Marlboro Light cigarettes. Freese neither saw nor heard Ms. Sargent ask Teller for proof of age, or for identification. She sold him the cigarettes for $1.71, including sales tax. Teller, who is not a regular patron of the Respondent’s facility, contends that Ms. Sargeant neither asked him his age nor sought any identification. He was dressed in clothing consistent with that of a teenager, without a hat, at the time of the purchase. When Teller left the licensed premises, he gave the cigarettes he had purchased to Freese who marked them for evidence on the spot. Thereafter, Freese went back to the Respondent’s facility the following Monday and advised Ms. Sargeant of the unauthorized purchase. She had no recollection of it. Freese waited until the following Monday to notify the licensee of the alleged violation because of a Division policy which required investigators to ensure that investigative aides are removed from the scene of a violation prior to any arrest or in-person notice of a violation is made. By the time the agency participants got home on Saturday, it was late. The following day was Sunday, in the absence of an emergency situation a non-work day, so the actual notice of violation was not given until the following Monday. Both Ms. Sargeant and Mr. Szymczak contend that by the time they were questioned on Monday, neither could remember a particular patron who purchased a pack of cigarettes. Some time later, on November 10, 1997, an Administrative Action was issued, indicating the Division’s intention to take disciplinary action against the licensee because of the unlawful sale of tobacco products to a minor. According to both Sargeant and Szymscak, there is no way Teller or anyone else could have purchased a pack of Marlboro Lights at their store for $1.71, including tax. At the time in issue, Marlboro was having a large promotion and had supplied them with several signs, for both outside and inside the store, which listed Marlboro Lights for sale at $1.88 per pack, plus tax, for a total of $2.00 per pack. The pricing structure for other cigarettes at the time, they claim, priced generic cigarettes at $1.69 per pack, plus tax, for a total of $1.80 per pack, and, at times, other less known brands on sale for $1.49 per pack plus tax. None, they claim, sell or were sold for $1.71 per pack, either with or without tax. Mr. Szymscak, who claims he is always in the store, also denies having seen either Freese or Teller in the licensed premises until Freese came in on the evening of Monday, October 13, 1997. When the Administrative Action was initially served on the Respondent, it did not contest that the sale had been made. Mr. Szymscak and Ms. Sargent avowed no knowledge of it, however. They were initially contesting the amount of the proposed fine as excessive. However, having heard both Freese and Teller testify at hearing as to the $1.71 price of the cigarettes, they now state they are convinced the purchase was not made at their establishment. The more credible weight of the evidence establishes that the alleged sale was made at Respondent's store.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order in this case imposing the minimum appropriate penalty for the offense of unlawfully selling one pack of cigarettes to a minor under the age of 18. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: George G. Lewis, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Deborah Sargeant, President Stanley Szymczak, Secretary-Treasurer D & S Cleaning Services, Inc. Post Office Box 1723 New Port Richey, Florida 34656 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to pay tax surcharges, penalties, and interest owed on the sale of cigarettes, and, if so, the amount that is currently due and owing.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for monitoring the sale of tobacco products and for assuring that all businesses selling such products pay the requisite surcharges on each pack of cigarettes sold. Respondent is a convenience store which is licensed to sell tobacco products. The store also sells alcoholic beverages, food items, and miscellaneous other products. The sales tax associated with the sale of tobacco products (only) is at issue in this proceeding. The 2009 Florida Legislature enacted legislation imposing a $1.00 per pack surcharge on each pack of cigarettes sold in this state beginning July 1, 2009. Retailers having a cigarette inventory and, as of that date, would be required to pay a "floor tax" of $1.00 per pack in their inventory. In February 2010, the Department received a letter from an anonymous source (who identified himself as "A Good Civilian (Business Owner) (Who always pays tax)[sic]." The letter had a flyer attached to it which had been distributed by Respondent. The flyer identified a number of products for which buyers could realize "[t]he lowest prices in Polk County." Included in the list of products were various tobacco items, including cigarettes. The anonymous source's letter suggested that anyone who could sell the tobacco products at those prices must be doing something illegal. Based on the allegations in the anonymous letter, the Department decided to investigate. A team was sent to one of Respondent's stores (hereinafter referred to as "Store 1") on February 18, 2010. The team did an inventory of tobacco products at Store 1. There were 2,855 packs of cigarettes at Store 1. Some of the cigarettes were in individual packs; some were still in cartons (which contain ten packs each). The cigarette packs had the requisite state stamp on them. However, most of the packs had a stamp which had been in existence prior to the change in law on July 1, 2009. The fact that most of Store 1's cigarette packs had the old stamp meant that the cigarettes had been around for a while. The inventory eventually formed the basis for an audit performed on Respondent's other store ("Store 2"). Store 2 had just recently opened and was stocked with cigarettes brought over from Store 1. There were, therefore, no invoices available at Store 2 as to the purchase of the cigarettes it had on hand. The audit process involved a determination of distributors from which Respondent purchased its cigarettes. The two primary distributors were Sam's Club and Dosal. The Department ascertained from those distributors how many packs of cigarettes Respondent had purchased over a given span of time. Sam's Club provided records seeming to indicate the purchase of 37,770 packs between February 1 and June 29, 2009; another 9,090 packs were purchased between July 4, 2009, and January 29, 2010. Dosal said 65,490 packs had been purchased between March 3 and June 23, 2009; another 17,800 were purchased between July and December 2009. An audit investigation was commenced at Store 2 on March 17, 2010. The auditors did not ascertain the actual number of packs of cigarettes on hand at the store on that date. The auditors talked with the owners of the stores (Salah Rabi and his brother, Mohammed Rabi) about their sales history. Pursuant to requests of the auditors, the owners also sent in some additional records reflecting their sale of cigarettes. In order to calculate the number of cigarette packs sold by Store 2 during a four-month period, the auditors determined how much business the store had done in all products (including non-tobacco products) for that period. Respondent gave the Department a list of daily sales on all products sold and the taxes paid on those products for the period February 2009 through January 2010. The average monthly sales amount for the store during the audit period was $25,000. However, the Department found the information provided by Respondent to be incomplete and, thus, unreliable. The auditors then assumed that 80 percent of the store's sales were for cigarettes1/ and that the average price per pack was $4.50. Using this formula, the auditors found that approximately 4,444 packs of cigarettes were sold each month, which the auditors rounded up to 4,500. Thus, for the audit period, the auditors estimated that 18,000 packs of cigarettes were sold. Neither of the auditors testified at final hearing as to the reasonableness of the formula or as to their alleged conversations with the owners. Based on their findings, the auditors concluded that Respondents owe a balance of $77,798.23. That figure was derived as follows: Total packs purchased 3/09 - 6/09 from Dosal 65,490 from Sam's 37,770 Total purchases prior to 7/1/09 103,260 Estimated monthly sales at 4,500 packs per month for four months 18,000 Total estimated inventory on 7/1/09 85,260 Floor tax due on estimated inventory $85,260 Floor tax paid $ 4,963,09 Unpaid floor tax $80,296.91 Overpayment on other tobacco product $(2,498.54) Total cigarette floor tax due $77,798.37 Missing from the evidence presented was any statement by the Department as to whether, on March 17, 2010, or any other date, there were 80,000-plus packs of cigarettes visible at the store. It seems plausible that so many packs, even if in cartons of 10 packs apiece, would be easy to identify. Respondent refutes the basic premise of the auditor's findings. Using cash register receipts (called Z Tapes) from March and May 2009 (two of the four months at issue), Respondent was able to establish a more accurate percentage of cigarette sales versus all products sold. The Z Tapes are printed out each day by way of turning a key on the cash register. The tapes print out a receipt showing the date, the number of packs of cigarettes sold, the number of food items sold, and the number of taxable items sold. According to the Z Tapes, close to 90 percent2/ of Store 2's total sales for those months were cigarette sales, i.e., a much higher percentage than used by the auditors. The evidence presented by the owners is credible and persuasive. Respondent also provided a calculation of its price per pack of cigarettes. The price depends, in part, on how much they pay the distributors for each pack or carton of cigarettes. Of its four best selling cigarettes, the following costs were determined for the period March through June 2009: Brand Cost Markup Markup% Price 305's 2.93 .06 2 2.99 Marlboro 4.66 .08 1.7 4.74 Romy 2.75 .21 7.0 2.96 Newport 4.45 .34 7.6 4.79 Then, using the inventory of products on hand, a weighted average markup percentage was calculated as follows: Brand Weighted Number Weighted Cost Weighted Price Markup 305's 5,900 17,287 $17,641 Marlboro 1,957 9,394 9,276 Romy 1,611 4,430 4,769 Newport 108 454 517 TOTAL 31,565 $32,203 2.02% Based on the foregoing calculation, the owners estimated an average price per pack of $3.00, i.e., much less than the $4.50 per pack figure utilized by the auditors. The unrefuted testimony of the owners is credible and seems reasonable based upon the facts. Inasmuch as neither of the auditors was available to provide further justification for their price-per-pack estimation, the owners' calculation is accepted for use in this proceeding. Respondent purchased 91,520 packs of cigarettes during the period of March 2009 through June 2009. Respondent sold 55,634 packs of cigarettes during that same period. The average price per pack sold was $3.00 (three dollars). Based on the foregoing, Respondent had a floor inventory of 35,886 packs of cigarettes on July 1, 2009. Respondent paid a cigarette surcharge floor tax of $4,963.09 on July 15, 2009. Respondent also overpaid its floor tax for other tobacco products by $2,948.54 for a total of $7,815.83 in payments to the Department. That amount should be credited against any tax liability determined in this proceeding. The Department provided bank statements for Store 1 and Store 2 showing much larger monthly transactions than evidenced by the stores' sale of products. That fact raised a red flag justifying further investigation into Respondent's business. However, the discrepancy was explained by the fact that Respondent does a large amount of check-cashing business at its stores. The large bank transactions are not relevant to the issue in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, imposing a cigarette surcharge in the amount of $35,886 (thirty-five thousand, eight hundred and eighty-six dollars) against Respondent, Discount Zone, Inc., d/b/a Lakeland Discount Beverage, Inc., minus $7,815.83 already paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 2011.
