08-004836 Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board vs. Frederick B. Nowell, Sr., D/B/A Welling Construction, Inc./Redland Company, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, January 27, 2009.

Summary: Petitioner demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(b) and 455.227(1)(c), Florida Statutes, when he pled guilty to mail fraud in federal district court. Recommend revocation, a $15,000 fine and costs.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY )

LICENSING BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 08-4836

)

FREDERICK B. NOWELL, SR., )

d/b/a WELLING CONSTRUCTION, )

INC./REDLAND COMPANY, INC., )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On November 19, 2008, pursuant to notice, a hearing was held

in Tallahassee, Florida, by Lisa Shearer Nelson, Administrative

Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings. Respondent

participated by means of teleconferencing from the Anteaus

Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Kyle Christopher, Esquire

Paul Rendleman, Qualified Representative

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

For Respondent: Frederick B. Nowell, Sr., pro se

#79553-004 Anteaus Unit

Federal Medical Center

Post Office Box 14500

Lexington, Kentucky 40512-4500

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue to be determined is whether Respondent has

committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if

so, what penalty should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On September 12, 2008, the Department of Business and

Professional Regulation (DBPR or the Department) filed a two-

count Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent,

Frederick B. Nowell, Sr., alleging in Count I that Respondent

violated Section 489.129(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and in Count II

that he violated Section 455.227(1)(c), Florida Statutes, both by

virtue of his being found guilty of mail fraud in the United

States District Court, Southern District of Florida. Respondent

filed a Response in Opposition to the Amended Administrative

Complaint, and an Election of Rights, disputing the allegations

in the Amended Administrative Complaint and requesting a hearing

pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The case was

referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on

September 29, 2008, for the assignment of an administrative law

judge.

The case was noticed for hearing to be conducted

November 19, 2008, in Tallahassee, Florida. Because Respondent

is incarcerated in federal prison outside the State of Florida,

arrangements were made pursuant to his request, for him to

participate in the hearing via telephone. At hearing, the

Department presented the testimony of two witnesses and

Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1 through 8 were admitted into

evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit 9 was offered and ruling on its

admissibility was deferred until Respondent received the entire

exhibit and had the opportunity to object to the exhibit. No

objection was received, and Petitioner's Exhibit 9 is now

admitted. Respondent chose not to testify or submit exhibits,

but made legal argument at the conclusion of the hearing.

The proceedings were recorded and the transcript was filed

with the Division on December 5, 2008. Because it was

anticipated that Respondent's incarceration would make it

difficult for him to review the transcript and file a proposed

order within ten days, the parties were given until January 5,

2009, to submit proposed recommended orders. Both submissions

were timely filed and have been carefully considered in the

preparation of this Recommended Order. All references are to the

2006 version of the Florida Statutes unless otherwise indicated.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times material to the Amended Administrative

Complaint, Respondent was a certified general contractor, holding

license numbers CGC 1505096 (d/b/a Redland Company, Inc.), and

CGC 1507772 (d/b/a Welling Construction, Inc.). Respondent was

also licensed as a certified utility and excavation contractor,

holding license numbers 1223883 (d/b/a Redland Company, Inc.),

CUC 1224007 (d/b/a Welling Construction, Inc.).

2. At all times material to the Amended Administrative

Complaint, Respondent was a primary qualifying agent for Redland

Company, Inc., which held a certificate of authority license

number QB 0009978. Respondent was also a primary qualifying

agent for Welling Construction Company, which held certificate of

authority license number QB 34340.

3. On or around June 21, 2007, Respondent executed a plea

agreement in Case No. 07-20415-CR-MARTINEZ, in the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In the plea

agreement, Respondent pled guilty to an Information which charged

him with one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1341.

4. On that same day, the plea agreement was considered and

accepted by the Honorable Jose Martinez. Before acceptance of

the plea agreement, the following colloquy occurred:

COURT: Mr. Nowell, before you signed this

document, did you have the opportunity to

discuss it with your lawyer?

A. I did.

Q. Did you, in fact discuss it with your

lawyer?

A. I did.

Q. Did you review it with him and do you

feel that you fully understood it at the time

you executed it?

A. Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Counsel, do you believe your

client fully understood this document before

he executed it?

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, Your Honor.

* * *

BY THE COURT: But let me ask you,

Mr. Nowell: Is there anything other than

what is contained in this eight pages that

has been promised to you or made known to

you? Do you have any additional promises or

assurances of any kind in an effort to induce

you to enter into a plea of guilty other than

what is contained in those eight pages?

A. No, sir.

Q. Has anyone attempted in any way to force

you to plead guilty, threatened or coerced

you?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you understand that if I don't accept

the sentence recommendation in your plea

agreement, you will still be bound by your

plea and have no right to withdraw it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you understand that if the sentence is

more severe than you expected it, you will

still be bound by your plea and have no right

to withdraw it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How do you now plead to the information

pending against you?

A. Guilty.

THE COURT: It is the finding of the Court in

the case of U.S.A. vs. Frederick Bradley

Nowell, Sr. that the defendant is fully

competent and capable of entering an informed

plea, that his plea of guilty is a knowing

and voluntary plea supported by an

independent basis in fact, containing each of

the essential elements of the offense.

His plea is therefore accepted. He is now

adjudged guilty of that offense.

5. Attached to the plea agreement signed by Respondent was

an Agreed Statement of Facts. Those facts supporting the plea

provide in pertinent part:

1. The Redland Company, Inc., (hereinafter

referred to as "Redland Company"), a Florida

corporation, was an engineering construction

company [in] Homestead, Florida. The Redland

Company provided a broad range of services in

the South Florida area, including road,

bridge and sewage work, and excavation.

2. Defendant Frederick Bradley Nowell, Sr.

was hired by the Redland Company . . . with

various duties including the preparation of

work estimates, the negotiation of contracts

and subcontracts, and the approval of

invoices and payments. . . .

3. The Redland Company maintained its

operating account at Community Bank of

Florida, in Homestead, Florida. [Nowell] had

signatory authority over the Redland Company

operating account.

4. In or around October 1992, [Nowell]

established Nowell Group, Inc., a Florida

corporation of which he was president.

* * *

6. In or around November 1997 through in or

around October 2006, . . . [Nowell] did

knowingly and with intent to defraud devise

and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to

defraud and to obtain money and property from

the Redland Company by means of materially

false and fraudulent pretenses,

representations, and promises, knowing that

they were false and fraudulent when made, and

knowingly caused to be delivered certain mail

matter by United States Mail and by a private

and commercial interstate carrier, . . . for

the purpose of executing the scheme.

* * *

9. [Nowell], having control of the payment

of vendor invoices at the Redland Company and

signatory authority over the company's

operating bank account, issued and signed

numerous unauthorized Redland Company checks

payable to NGI Marine. In one instance,

Nowell made the unauthorized Redland Company

check payable to Welling Construction, a

construction company owned by his wife.

10. [Nowell] would deposit the unauthorized

Redland Company checks made payable to "NGI

Marine" and "Welling Construction" into his

Nowell Group, Inc. bank account. Through

this scheme, Nowell was able to defraud the

Redland Company of approximately $11,441,100

dollars, which monies Nowell used for travel,

gambling, and his general personal benefit.

11. [Nowell] concealed the issuance of the

unauthorized checks by writing "NGI Marine"

or "Welling Construction" only on the

negotiable copy of the check, while

falsifying the corresponding duplicates of

the check to make it appear that the original

check had been made payable to an established

Redland Company vendor. Nowell would then

[sic] attach old, legitimate vendor's

invoices to the false duplicates as purported

support for the checks, and place and cause

to be placed the fraudulent documents in

company files.

12. To further conceal the fraud, [Nowell]

would review the monthly Community Bank of

Florida bank account statements for the

Redland Company and remove evidence of his

wrongdoing. Where the bank statements

reflected checks issued to NGI Marine, Nowell

would alter the documents to make it falsely

appear that the checks had been issued to

legitimate vendors.

13. On or about January 16, 2003, [Nowell],

for the purpose of executing and in

furtherance of the aforesaid scheme and

artifice to defraud and to obtain money and

property from others by means of materially

and false and fraudulent pretenses,

representations, and promises, and attempting

to do so, did knowingly cause to be delivered

by United States Mail or a commercial

interstate carrier, a 2003 Uniform Business

Report on behalf of Nowell Group, Inc., sent

from the Southern District of Florida to the

Florida Secretary of State in Tallahassee,

Florida.

6. The transfer of funds and the receipt and issuance of

checks arec essential to the practice of contracting.

7. Financial responsibility is inextricably intertwined in

the practice of contracting. In this case, the acts to which

Respondent stipulated involved defrauding the company for which

Respondent was a primary qualifying agent.

8. Respondent was adjudicated guilty of a crime directly

related to the practice of or the ability to practice

contracting.

9. Respondent has challenged the propriety of his guilty

plea in the federal courts. To date, his challenges have been

unsuccessful.

10. The total investigative costs of this case incurred by

the Department, excluding costs associated with any attorney's

time, was $223.21.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

11. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this

action in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes (2008).

12. The Department is the state agency charged with

regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165

and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes.

13. In this penal proceeding, Petitioner has the burden of

proving the allegations in the Administrative Complaint by clear

and convincing evidence. Department of Banking and Finance v.

Osborne Stern and Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v.

Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987); §120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

(2008). Clear and convincing evidence is defined as follows:

Clear and convincing evidence requires

that the evidence must be found to be

credible; the facts to which the witnesses

testify must be distinctly remembered; the

testimony must be precise and explicit and

the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as

to the facts in issue. The evidence must be

of such weight that it produces in the mind

of the trier of fact a firm belief or

conviction, without hesitancy, as to the

truth of the allegations sought to be

established.

In re Davey , 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994), quoting , Slomowitz

v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

14. Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint charged

Respondent with violating Section 489.129(1)(b), Florida

Statutes. Count II charged a violation of Section 489.129(1)(c),

Florida Statutes, by virtue of violating Section 455.227(1)(c),

Florida Statutes. Those statutes provide in pertinent part:

455.227 Grounds for discipline; penalties;

enforcement.--

(1) The following acts shall constitute

grounds for which the disciplinary actions

specified in subsection (2) may be taken;

* * *

(c) Being convicted or found guilty of, or

entering a plea of nolo contendere to,

regardless of adjudication, a crime in any

jurisdiction which relates to the practice

of, or the ability to practice, a licensee's

profession.

* * *

(2) When the board, or the department when

there is no board, finds any person guilty of

the grounds set forth in subsection (1) or of

any grounds set forth in the applicable

practice act, including conduct constituting

a substantial violation of subsection (1) or

a violation of the applicable practice act

which occurred prior to obtaining a license,

it may enter an order imposing one or more of

the following penalties:

(a) Refusal to certify, or to certify with

restrictions, an application for a license.

(b) Suspension or permanent revocation of a

license.

(c) Restriction of practice.

(d) Imposition of administrative fine not to

exceed $5,000 for each count or separate

offense.

(e) Issuance of a reprimand.

(f) Placement of the licensee on probation

for a period of time and subject to such

conditions as the board, or the department

when there is no board, may specify. Those

conditions may include, but are not limited

to, requiring the licensee to undergo

treatment, attend continuing education

course, submit to be reexamined, work under

the supervision of another licensee, or

satisfy any terms which are reasonably

tailored to the violations found.

(g) Corrective action.

* * *

489.129 Disciplinary proceedings.--

(1) The board may take any of the following

actions against any certificateholder or

registrant: place on probation or reprimand

the licensee, revoke, suspend, or deny the

issuance or renewal of the certificate,

registration or certificate of authority,

require financial restitution to a consumer

for financial harm directly related to a

violation of a provision of this part, impose

an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000

per violation, require continuing education,

or assess costs associated with investigation

and prosecution, if the contractor,

financially responsible officer, or business

organization for which the contractor is a

primary qualifying agent, a financially

responsible officer, or a secondary

qualifying agent responsible under s.

489.1195 if found guilty of any of the

following acts:

* * *

(b) Being convicted or found guilty of, or

entering a plea of nolo contendere to,

regardless of adjudication, a crime in any

jurisdiction which directly related to the

practice of contracting or the ability to

practice contracting.

(c) Violating any provision of chapter 455.

15. In this case, the Department has established by clear

and convincing evidence that Respondent pled guilty to mail fraud

and was adjudicated guilty of said crime in federal district

court. The pivotal question is whether the crime committed is a

crime directly related to the practice or the ability to practice

contracting.

16. Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes, defines the term

"contractor" as follows:

The person who is qualified for, and shall be

responsible for, the project contracted for

and means, except as exempted in this part,

the person who, for compensation , undertakes

to, submits a bid to, or does himself or by

others contract, repair, alter, remodel, add

to, demolish, subtract from, or improve any

building or structure, including related

improvements to real estate . . . . (Emphasis

supplied).

17. Because this is a penal proceeding, the statute is

strictly construed in favor of the licensee. Elmariah v.

Department of Professional Regulation , 574 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1990). In this case, the crime committed dealt with the

fraudulent payment of invoices for financial gain and the

alteration of records to accomplish that financial gain.

18. In Elmariah , the court construed the phrase "fraudulent

representations in the practice of medicine" as opposed to some

action "directly related to the practice" of a profession.

Section 489.105(3) expressly acknowledges that contracting

involves activities performed for compensation, and recognizes

that a contractor is one who may undertake responsibility for a

job to be performed by others, such as subcontractors.

19. The recent decision in Doll v. Department of Health ,

969 So. 2d 1103, 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), controls the

resolution of the issue of whether Respondent's adjudication of

guilt for mail fraud is within the scope of Section

489.129(1)(c). The First District stated:

Several cases demonstrate that, although the

statutory definition of a particular

profession does not specifically refer to

acts involved in the crime committed, the

crime may nevertheless relate to the

profession. In Greenwald v. Department of

Professional Regulation , the court affirmed

the revocation of a medical doctor's license

after the doctor was convicted of

solicitation to commit first-degree murder.

501 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The Fifth

District Court of Appeal has held that

although an accountant's fraudulent acts

involving gambling did not relate to his

technical ability to practice public

accounting, the acts did justify revocation

of the accountant's license for being

convicted of a crime that directly relates to

the practice of public accounting. Ashe v.

Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, Bd. of

Accountancy , 467 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 5th DCA

1985). We held in Rush v. Department of

Professional Regulation, Board of Podiatry ,

that a conviction for conspiracy to import

marijuana is directly related to the practice

or ability to practice podiatry. 448 So. 2d

26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). These cases

demonstrate, in our view, that appellee did

not err by concluding Doll's conviction was

"related to" the practice of chiropractic

medicine or the ability to practice

chiropractic medicine.

20. Finally, Respondent is a primary qualifying agent for

both Redland Company, Inc., and Welling Construction, Inc., one

of which was the victim of his crime. Primary qualifying agents

are "responsible for supervision of all operations of the

business organization; for all field work at all sites; and for

financial matters, both for the organization in general and for

each specific job." It is clear that by committing mail fraud as

set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts, and transferring funds

for his own benefit when he was not entitled to those funds,

Respondent breached his responsibility to the companies he

qualified. It is therefore found that mail fraud based upon the

facts demonstrated in this case is a crime directly related to

the practice of contracting or the ability to practice

contracting.

21. Respondent argues that his licenses should not be

subject to discipline at this time because he is still engaged in

attempts to attack his judgment and sentence. Respondent's

argument is without merit. A similar argument was made in

Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners

v. Azima , DOAH No. 84-2536 (Recommended Order April 25, 1985;

Final Order June 21, 1985). In that case, the respondent was

found guilty by a jury verdict of culpable negligence and the

trial court withheld adjudication. He appealed the verdict and

while that appeal was pending, proceedings were instituted

against his medical license. Azima argued, as does Mr. Nowell,

that no action should be taken against his license while the

appeal remained pending. The hearing officer rejected this

argument and stated:

12. Respondent was not "convicted" within

the meaning of this statute, since a judgment

of guilt was not entered by the court. See,

Delta Truck Brokers, Inc. v. King , 142 So. 2d

273, 275 (Fla. 1962):

The term "conviction" has an accepted

meaning in applying statutes of this

nature. It simply means a determination

of guilt and a judgment of guilt by a

court of competent jurisdiction in a

criminal proceeding.

[Citations omitted].

Also, 9 Fla. Jur., Sec. 11, p. 34.

13. It is evident, however, that he was

found guilty by a jury of committing a crime

directly relating to the practice of

medicine. Respondent argues that the statute

should be construed to require, as a

prerequisite, that the conviction or finding

of guilt be final and that any appellate

remedy pursued must first be exhausted. Such

a construction would engraft a new

requirement on the statute, one not expressed

or necessarily implied. In Delta Truck

Brokers, Inc. , supra , the Court's definition

of "conviction" as used in licensing

statutes, made no mention of finality or the

need for appellate remedies to be exhausted.

* * *

15. When an accused is convicted or found

guilty of a crime in a trial court, the "robe

of innocence" is stripped from him. . . .

Section 458.331(1)(c) proscribes the fact of

a conviction, or the fact of a finding of

guilt, regardless of its ultimate veracity.

Such fact is not negated or annulled by an

appeal, taken either directly or

collaterally. . . . The enforcement of the

statutes would be frustrated if Respondent's

argument is given its logical effect: The

Department would be prevented from

disciplining a licensee during the years it

may take to exhaust all available direct and

collateral appeals. . . .

22. The same can be said here. The violation of Sections

finding of guilt after Respondent's entering a guilty plea to the

crime of mail fraud. Nothing in either statute requires that the

Board wait until that finding is affirmed on appeal or until all

available collateral challenges have been exhausted. Compare

Rife v. Department of Professional Regulation , 638 So. 2d 542,

543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)(discipline based on action against

appellant's license in another state authorized where appellate

proceedings still pending in Vermont).

23. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.001 sets out

the normal penalty ranges for penalties imposed for violations of

Sections 489.129 and 455.227, Florida Statutes. For both

violations charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, the

minimum penalty listed is a $2,500 fine and/or probation, or

suspension. The maximum penalty is a $10,000 fine and

revocation. The Department acknowledges, however, that with

respect to the violation in Count II, Section 455.227 only

authorizes a fine of $5,000.

24. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.002 provides

that factors in mitigation or aggravation of penalty shall

include the following:

(1) Monetary or other damage to the

licensee's customer, in any way associated

with the violation, which damage the licensee

has not relieved, as of the time the penalty

is to be assessed. (This provision shall not

be given effect to the extent it would

contravene federal bankruptcy law.)

(2) Actual job-site violations of building

codes, or conditions exhibiting gross

negligence, incompetence, or misconduct by

the licensee, which have not been corrected

as of the time the penalty is being assessed.

(3) The danger to the public.

(4) The number of complaints filed against

the licensee.

(5) The length of time the licensee has

practiced.

(6) The actual damage, physical or

otherwise, to the licensee's customer.

(7) The deterrent effect of the penalty

imposed.

(8) The effect of the penalty upon the

licensee's livihood.

(9) Any efforts at rehabilitation.

(10) Any other mitigating or aggravating

circumstances.

25. Respondent presented no evidence of any kind at

hearing, including any evidence of mitigation. However, the

Department stipulated at hearing that this was a first offense

for Respondent. Only factors (3), (5), (7) and (10) have any

application in this case. 1/ There is a substantial danger to the

public where funds deposited in good faith with a contracting

company are transferred for the personal use of a licensee

instead of being used for the contracted purpose. It is not

entirely clear how long Respondent has been licensed, but

licensure records indicate that he has been a primary qualifying

agent for Redland Company since August of 1988. The evidence

shows that the scheme resulting in his guilty plea existed for

the duration of the time he qualified Redland Company. It is

axiomatic that the potential loss of a license should have a

deterrent effect on those who misuse their licenses for personal

gain. Finally, the amount of money diverted from the Redland

Company is substantial. Not only did Respondent divert money to

which he was not entitled, but he violated the trust that was

placed in him to be responsible for the financial aspects of the

company. This type of behavior cannot be tolerated or excused.

26. The Department asserts that, in addition to revocation,

Respondent should be ordered to pay restitution in the amount of

$11,441,100.99 to the Redland Company or submit proof that all

orders imposed in United States District Court, Southern District

of Florida, Miami Division, Case No. 07-20415-CR-JAM have been

satisfied. The Department requests this penalty component "in

order to prevent Respondent from reapplying for licensure prior

to having complied with the judgment" in the criminal proceeding.

27. The judgment in the criminal proceeding was not offered

into evidence in this case. While the amount of money

transferred from Redland Company is included in the Agreed

Statement of Facts attached to the plea agreement, there is no

evidence that the amount required for restitution in the criminal

judgment is the same amount. It would be inappropriate to

consider enforcement of its terms, whatever they may be, in the

recommended penalty when the order is not in the record in this

case. Moreover, to include this requirement would be a deviation

from the Disciplinary Guidelines.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law

reached, it is

RECOMMENDED:

That a final order be entered:

1. Finding that Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(c),

Florida Statutes, as charged in Count I of the Amended

Administrative Complaint;

2. Finding that Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(c),

by violation of Section 455.227(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as

charged in Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint;

3. Revoking Respondent's certifications and certificates of

authority, and imposing a fine of $10,000 for the violation of

Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint; imposing an

additional fine of $5,000 for Count II of the Amended

Administrative Complaint; and imposing costs in the amount of

$223.21.

DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January 2009, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LISA SHEARER NELSON

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 27th day of January, 2009.

ENDNOTE

1/ While Rule 61G4-17.002(1) and (6) speak in terms of monetary

or other damage inflicted, it is damage to the licensee's

customer. Here, the damage was not to a specific customer, but to

the company for which Respondent was a primary qualifying agent.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Kyle Christopher, Esquire

Paul Rendleman, Qualified Representative

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202

Frederick B. Nowell, Sr.

Federal Medical Center

No. 79553-004 Anteaus Unit

Post Office Box 14500

Lexington, Kentucky 40512-4500

G. W. Harrell, Executive Director

Construction Industry Licensing Board

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202

Ned Luczynski, General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to

this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will

issue the final order in this case.