State Office ofadministrative Hearings. Lesli G. Ginn Chief Administrative Law Judge. December 8, 2017

Transcription

1 State Office ofadministrative Hearings Lesli G. Ginn Chief Administrative Law Judge,tECclVED OF..C TAB0 HIJU~l ON LEG"f!L DEPT. December 8, 2017 A. Bentley Nettles VIA REGULAR MAIL Executive Director Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 5806 Mesa Drive Austin, Texas RE: SOAH Docket No ; TABC Case Nos , Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission vs 2345 Meacham LLC, D/B/A Buck's Cabaret Dear Mr. Nettles: Please find enclosed a Proposal for Decision m this case. recommendation and underlying rationale. It contains my Exceptions and replies may be filed by any party in accordance with 1 TEX. ADMIN. CODE (c), a SOAH rule which may be found at Sincerely, ~~-1Jt~, MONICA CARZA ADMl::"llSTR..\TIVE.L\W II..~ ~ SfAIT OFFICE 0~ A.D~IL."'flSTRATIVE RIEARL~GS MG/ Jal Enclosure xc v' Edgar M. Korzeniowski, Staff Attorney, Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm ission, 427 W. 20 h Street, Suite 600, Houston, TX VIA REGULAR MAIL C lark E. Smith, General Counsel, Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, 5806 Mesa Drive, Austin, TX VIA REGULAR MAIL Dina Powell, General Counsel's Office, Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, 5806 Mesa Drive, Austi n, TX VIA REGULAR MAIL (with Certified Evidentiary Record and l Hearing CD/s) Timothy E. Griffith, Attorney At Law, Griffith & Johnson, PLLC, IO l East Park Blvd., Suite 600, Plano, TX VIA REGULAR MAIL 300 W. 15th Street, Sui te 504, A ustin, Texas 7870 I/ P.O. Box 13025, Austin, Texas (Main) (Docketing) (Fax) www. soah. texas.gov

2 SOAH DOCKET NO (TABC CASE NOS , ) TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION, Petitioner v MEACHAM LLC D/B/A BUCK'S CABARET, Respondent PERMIT NO. MB , LB & PE TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS PROPOSAL FOR DECISION The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) staff (Petitioner) brought this enforcement action against 2345 Meacham LLC d/b/a Buck's Cabaret (Respondent) for its premises located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas, alleging that Respondent's entertainer ( an agent, servant, or employee) was intoxicated on the licensed premises, an adult entertainment club, and that Respondent's entertainer solicited an undercover agent to buy drinks for consumption by the entertainer, in violation ofthe Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (Code). Based on the evidence presented, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finds the alleged violations occurred. Due to Petitioner's violation history, Respondent requested cancellation ofpetitioner's permits. The ALJ, having considered the current violations, as well as the violation history, recommends permit cancellation as the appropriate sanction. I. JURISDICTION, NOTICE, AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Jurisdiction and proper notice were not disputed; therefore, those matters are addressed in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions oflaw without further discussion here.

3 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE2 On September 7, 2017, a hearing convened at the State Office ofadministrative Hearings in Fmi Wmih, Texas, before ALJ Monica Garza. Petitioner was represented by staff attorney Edgar M. Korzeniowski. Respondent appeared and was represented by attorney Timothy E. Griffith. Following presentation of evidence, and at the request of the parties, the record was left open to allow the filing of written closing arguments. The record closed on October 17, II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE LAW TABC exercises statewide regulatory authority over the manufacture, sale, distribution, transportation, and possession ofalcoholic beverages, including the issuance oflicenses and permits to entities subject to its regulation. 1 TABC may suspend for not more than 60 days or cancel a permit ifit finds that the pennittee violated a provision of the Code or a T ABC rule. 2 The Code provides for suspension or cancellation ofa permit ift ABC finds the permittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises. 3 the permit holder. 4 "Permittee" includes an agent, servant, or employee of Further, a pennittee may not allow the "solicitation of any person to buy drinks for consumption by the retailer or any ofthe retailer's employees." 5 The Code does not specifically define the term "employee." In Ackley v. State, 592 S.W. 2d 606, 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), the Texas Court ofcriminal Appeals defined "employee" as "a person who works for another in return for financial or other consideration." ' Tex. Alco. Bev. Code Tex. Alco. Bev. Code l l.61(b)(2). Tex. Alco. Bev. Code I l.61(b)(l3), (5). ' Tex. Alco. Bev. Code l.04(11). 5 Tex. Alco. Bev. Code I 04.0 I (a)(4).

4 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE3 T ABC has adopted a schedule ofsanctions which may be imposed for each violation ofthe Code or TABC rules. 6 III. EVIDENCE A. Background Petitioner holds a Mixed Beverage Pennit which includes designations for Late Hours and Beverage Cartage Permits. Those pennits were initially issued by TABC on July 28,2010, and they have been renewed. TABC previously took action against Petitioner's permits for "Intoxicated Licensee/Permittee" violations occurring on December 20, 2013, and March 2, B. Events Occurring on September 3, 2016 On September 3, 2016, T ABC Agents Korah Pounds and Denver Carleton, dressed in civilian clothing, were working in an undercover capacity on Respondent's licensed premises. Agent Pounds provided the following testimony regarding his interactions and observations at the adult entertaimnent club. At 1 :26 a.m., a dancer, working under the alias "Alejandra" and later identified as Andrea Gonzalez de Begum, came to the attention ofthe undercover agents. Ms. Begum was sitting in a patron's lap and was observed pouring two drinks of Grey Goose vodka into highball glasses, consuming both drinks as she sat with the patrons. A short time later, Adam Redfield, Respondent's manager, retrieved the bottle ofvodka from the table. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Begum dropped her money, and agents observed that she was uncoordinated, stumbled, and almost fell as she retrieved the money. When she left the table to join patrons at another table, Ms. Begum displayed difficulty walking, and she bumped into a chair along the way. Once she arrived at the other table, Ms. Begum straddled herself around a patron, with her face towards the patron. Agent Pounds observed that 6 Tex. Alco. Bev. Code 5.362; 16 Tex. Admin. Code ch. 34.

5 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE4 Ms. Begum accidentally bumped her head against the patron on several occasions. Other patrons at the table laughed upon observing Ms. Begum's condition. Agent Pounds also observed that Ms. Begum's eyes were "buggy," her hair was disheveled, her speech was "gargled," and she presented like a "bobble head" toy. At 1:35 a.m., open-team agents entered the premises and made contact with Ms. Begum. TABC Agent Evan Ferguson provided the following testimony regarding his observations of Ms. Begum. After relocating Ms. Begum to a private office in the club, agents observed that she appeared confused and was nonresponsive to questions. She admitted to consuming a few alcoholic beverages, as well as ingesting Xanax for insomnia and hyperactivity. TABC Agent Leigh Sosebee attempted to administer the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus evaluation, part of the battery of standardized field sobriety evaluations used to detect intoxication. Ms. Begum was unable to follow directions for completion of the evaluation, constantly moving her head when she was asked to follow the stimulus with her eyes only. Agent Ferguson authenticated the video-recording ofthe open-team contact with Ms. Begum, admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit 4. The recording shows that Ms. Begum displayed slurred and incoherent speech, poor coordination, and unsteady balance. Ms. Begum appeared confused throughout the recording. Ms. Begum admitting consuming 2 Long Island Iced Teas, and she acknowledged that she becomes intoxicated after consuming 2-3 drinks. Agents concluded that Ms. Begum was intoxicated, and they ended their contact by ensuring that Respondent arranged for a safe ride for Ms. Begum. The recording shows that Ms. Begum used her phone in an attempt to procure a ride home, even though a ride had already been procured in her presence. At the hearing, Curtis Wise, Respondent's owner, acknowledged that his staff was directed to be on the lookout for signs ofintoxication, such as sluned speech and balance issues. He admitted

6 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGES that Ms. Begum was intoxicated, noting that he would not have allowed her to be on the premises in that condition had he been present. C. Events Occurring on January 20, 2017 On January 20, 2017, T ABC Agents Roger Devine and Aaron de Tinne entered Respondent's premises in an undercover capacity. Agent Devine provided the following testimony regarding his interactions and observations at the club. While posing as patrons at the club, the agents were approached by a dancer who used the alias "Lacy." She was later identified as Margaret Reilly. At her request, the agents ordered and paid for a shot of Patron tequila, which was then consumed by Ms. Reilly. When she was later interviewed by Agent Ferguson, Ms. Reilly admitted that she had requested the agents to purchase the alcoholic beverage for her consumption. D. Status of Independent Professional Entertainers The parties dispute whether an Independent Professional Entertainer (IPE) is Respondent's agent, servant, or employee for purposes ofthe Code. Mr. Wise testified that dancers are provided the option ofworking as a traditional employee or as an IPE, indicating that all dancers choose the IPE option because it affords schedule flexibility and the ability to keep more ofthe money earned through entertaining. According to Mr. Wise, IPEs choose their own costumes and pay rental fees for use ofthe premises. Those dancers are also free to perform at other adult entertainment clubs. Respondent provides background checks for IPEs, as required by the City offort Worth. The IPEs are prohibited by Respondent from being under the influence ofdrugs or alcohol. Mr. Wise agreed that Respondent imposes some rules upon the use ofthe premises by entertainers in order to ensure that laws are not violated. According to Mr. Wise, both Ms. Begum and Ms. Reilly worked at Respondent's club via the IPE option.

7 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE6 Respondent offered its Exhibit 2 to demonstrate the difference in its treatment ofemployed dancers versus its treatment of IPEs. The paperwork discloses that neither Ms. Begum nor Ms. Reilly chose an option on Respondent's fonns wherein they were presented the opportunity to perform as either an IPE or an employee. The paperwork also discloses that Respondent identified dancers, at least in part, through the use oftheir social security numbers and also kept a record for each dancer regarding the hours worked and money collected from patrons. IV. ANALYSIS The evidence shows that Respondent's dancer, Ms. Begum, was intoxicated on the licensed premises. While on the licensed premises, TABC agents observed that Ms. Begum displayed difficulty with balance, coordination, and communication. Ms. Begum admitted that she had consumed alcoholic beverages, and she was observed consuming vodka on the premises. For those reasons, the ALJ finds that Ms. Begum was intoxicated on the licensed premises. The evidence further shows that Respondent's dancer, Ms. Reilly, requested undercover agents to purchase an alcoholic beverage for her personal consumption. The agents purchased a shot oftequila which was then consumed by Ms. Reilly. For those reasons, the ALJ finds that Ms. Reilly solicited patrons to purchase an alcoholic beverage for her personal consumption. The ALJ will now address whether Respondent's dancers, Ms. Begum and Ms. Reilly, held the status of "agent[s], servant[s], or employee[s]" as contemplated by the Code. Based on the following analysis, the ALJ finds that the dancers do hold such status. As an adult entertainment venue, Respondent clearly utilizes dancers to draw customers to its establishment and to earn money from those customers, including from alcoholic beverage sales. The dancers are an integral, not incidental, part of Respondent's business model. Although the dancers are required to complete paperwork choosing to perform either as employees or IPEs, the documents submitted by Respondent appear to show that neither Ms. Begum nor Ms. Reilly chose an

8 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE7 option. Respondent's documents also show that Respondent maintains a record of the dancers' social security numbers, hours worked, and income collected from patrons. Further, Ms. Begum was observed at a patron's table, pouring drinks from a bottle of Grey Goose vodka, demonstrating that the dancers were given some control over the flow ofalcoholic beverages on Respondent's premises. Finally, Respondent controls, or seeks to control, ce1iain aspects of the use of its facilities by dancers, including aspects oftheir interactions with patrons. Because the dancers served a vital role in Respondent's business, Respondent offered dancers the opportunity to earn money on the licensed premises by providing their services, and Respondent sought to exercise control over certain aspects ofthose services, the ALJ finds that the dancers were "agent[s], servant[s], or employee[s]" as contemplated by the Code. V. RECOMMENDATION The ALJ finds that on September 3, 2016, Respondent's agent, servant, or employee was intoxicated on the licensed premises. Respondent was sanctioned for the same violation on December 20, 2013, and March 2, Because this is the third time Respondent has been cited for the same health, safety, and welfare violation, the ALJ recommends cancellation of its permits as requested by Petitioner. The ALJ also finds that on January 20, 2017, Respondent's agent, servant, or employee solicited undercover agents to purchase an alcoholic beverage for her personal consumption. Based on the ALJ's recommendation of cancellation for the previous offense, a separate sanction is not recommended. VI. FINDINGS OF FACT Meacham LLC d/b/a Buck's Cabaret (Respondent) holds a Mixed Beverage Permit, MB , which includes the Mixed Beverage Late Hours Pennit and Beverage Cartage Permit, issued by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) for the premises located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas.

9 SOAR DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGES 2. Those permits were initially issued by T ABC on July 28, 2010, and they have been renewed. 3. On September 3, 2016, TABC Agents Korah Pounds and Denver Carleton, dressed in civilian clothing, were working in an undercover capacity on Respondent's licensed premises. 4. At 1 :26 a.m., a dancer, working under the alias "Alejandra" and later identified as Andrea Gonzalez de Begum, came to the attention of the undercover agents. 5. As she sat with patrons, Ms. Begum poured herself 2 drinks from a bottle of Grey Goose vodka, consuming them both. 6. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Begum dropped her money, and agents observed that she was uncoordinated, stumbled, and almost fell as she retrieved the money. 7. When she left the table to join patrons at another table, Ms. Begum displayed difficulty walking, and she bumped into a chair along the way. 8. Once she arrived at the other table, Ms. Begum straddled herself around another patron, face-to-face, and accidentally bumped heads with him on several occasions. 9. Agent Pounds observed that Ms. Begum's eyes were "buggy," her hair was disheveled, her speech was "gargled," and she presented like a "bobble head" toy. 10. At 1:35 a.m., open-team agents entered the premises and made contact with Ms. Begum. 11. After relocating Ms. Begum to a private office at the club, agents observed that she exhibited slurred speech, appeared confused, and was incoherent. 12. Ms. Begum admitted consuming several alcoholic beverages, and she also admitted that she normally becomes intoxicated after consuming 2-3 drinks. 13. Ms. Begum also admitted ingesting Xanax for insomnia and hyperactivity. 14. Ms. Begum was unable to comply with instructions for completion of standardized field sobriety testing. 15. Ms. Begum was intoxicated on Respondent's licensed premises. 16. On January 20, 2017, T ABC Agents Roger Devine and Aaron de Tinne entered Respondent's premises in an undercover capacity.

10 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE9 17. While posing as patrons at the club, the agents were approached by a dancer working under the alias "Lacy" and later identified as Margaret Reilly. 18. At her request, the agents ordered and paid for a shot of Patron tequila which was then consumed by Ms. Reilly. 19. Both Ms. Begum and Ms. Reilly were acting as agents, servants, or employees of Respondent. 20. TABC previously took action against Respondent's permits for "Intoxicated Licensee/Permittee" violations occurring on December 20, 2013, and March 2, Petitioner requested cancellation of Respondent's permits. 22. On April 3, 2017, TABC staff (Petitioner) issued its notice ofhearing to Respondent. 23. The Notice ofhearing contained a statement ofthe time, place, and nature ofthe hearing; a statement of the legal authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing was to be held; a reference to the particular sections of t.he statutes and rules involved; and a short plain statement of the factual matters asserted. 24. On September 7, 2017, a hearing convened at the State Office ofadministrative Hearings in Fort Worth, Texas, before Administrative Law Judge Monica Garza. Petitioner was represented by staff attorney Edgar M. Korzeniowski. Respondent appeared and was represented by attorney Timothy E. Griffith. Following presentation ofevidence, and at the request of the parties, the record was left open to allow the filing of written closing arguments. The record closed on October 17, VII. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. TABC has jurisdiction over this matter. Tex. Alco. Bev. Code 6.01, The State Office ofadministrative Hearings has jurisdiction to conduct the hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing findings offact and conclusions oflaw. Tex. Gov't Code ch Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent. Tex. Gov't Code The hearing was conducted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. Tex. Gov't Code ch

11 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE Petitioner had the burden ofproof by a preponderance ofthe evidence. 1 Tex. Admin. Code On September 3, 2016, Respondent's agent, servant, or employee was intoxicated on the licensed premises, in violation oftexas Alcoholic Beverage Code l l.6l(b)(l3), On January 20, 2017, Respondent's agent, servant, or employee solicited a drink purchase from a patron for her personal consumption, in violation oftexas Alcoholic Beverage Code 104.0l(a)(4). 8. Respondent's pennits should be cancelled. 16 Tex. Admin. Code SIGNED December 8, ~,:,,>)(~ MONICA GARZA 4 - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JGDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

12 AGENCY: STYLE/CASE: SOAH DOCKET NUMBER: STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS REFERRING AGENCY CASE: & FT. WORTH OFFICE 6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth, Texas Phone: (817) Fax: (512) SERVICE LIST Alcoholic Beverage Commission, Texas (TABC) 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCK'S CABARET STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS REPRESENTATIVE I ADDRESS TIMOTHY E. GRJFFITH ATTORNEY AT LAW GRJFFITH & JOHNSON, PLLC 101 EAST PARK BLVD., SUITE 600 PLANO, TX (214) (PH) (855) (FAX) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ALJ MONICA GARZA PARTIES GRJFFITH & JOHNSON, PLLC EDGAR M. KORZENIOWSKI TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W. 20TH STREET, SUITE 600 HOUSTON, TX (817) (PH) (713) (FAX) Edgar.Korzeniowski@tabc.texas.gov TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION xc: Docket Clerk, State Office of Administrative Hearings Clark E. Smith General Counsel, TABC, Fax No Page I of I

13 DocuSign Envelope ID: D4609F10-16D0-4FB0-814C-AD9BC DOCKET NOS , TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION, Petitioner VS MEACHAM LLC, D/B/A BUCK'S CABARET, Respondent PERMIT MB753709, LB, PE TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS (SOAH DOCKET NO ) BEFORE THE TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION ORDER CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this, the 5th day of April 2018, the above-styled and numbered cause. After proper notice was given, this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), with Administrative Law Judge Monica Garza presiding. The hearing convened on September 7, 2017, and the SOAH record closed October 17, The Administrative Law Judge filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on December 8, The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties, who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein. Respondent filed exceptions to the Proposal for Decision on December 19, Petitioner filed a waiver of exceptions and reply to the exceptions on December 21, The Administrative Law Judge filed a letter on January 5, 2018, stating that the exceptions were without merit. After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision, and with the exception of Conclusions of Law 6-8, as modified below, I adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained therein and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if such were fully set out and separately stated herein. Page 1 of 4

14 DocuSign Envelope ID: D4609F10-16D0-4FB0-814C-AD9BC Conclusion of Law No. 6 is modified to read: 6. On September 3, 2016, Respondent's agent, servant, or employee was intoxicated on the licensed premises, in violation of Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code l l.61(b)(l3) and 104.0I(a)(5). The modification to Conclusion of Law No. 6 replaces an incmrect statutory citation with the applicable citation referenced in the Notice of Hearing. The citation to Alcoholic Beverage Code in the Proposal for Decision is incmrect because there is no section of the Code so numbered. Conclusion of Law No. 7 is modified to read: 7. On January 20, 2017, Respondent's agent, servant, or employee solicited a drink purchase from a patron for her personal consumption, in violation of Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 1 l.61(b)(2) and 104.0l(a)(4). The modification to Conclusion of Law No. 7 inse1ts a citation to ll.61(b)(2), which autho1izes suspension as a sanction for a violation of any provision of the Code. The Notice of Hearing cites the violation of 1 l.61(b )(2) in connection with the violation of (a)( 4). Conclusion of Law No. 8 is modified to read: 8. Based on Findings of Fact Nos. 3-15, 19 and 20, Conclusion of Law No. 6, 16 Tex. Admin. Code 34.l(j), and Alco. Bev. Code1 l.61(b), Respondent's permits should be suspended for a period of 60 (sixty) days, unless a civil penalty in the amount of $18, (eighteen thousand dollars) is paid in lieu of the suspension. Based on Findings of Fact Nos , ConclusionofLawNo. 7, 16 Tex. Admin. Code 34.l(j), and Alco. Bev. Code 11.61(b), Respondent's permits should be suspended for a period of 7 (seven) days, unless a civil penalty in the amount of $2, (two thousand one hundred dollars) is paid in lieu of the suspension. Conclusion oflaw No. 8 relates to the appropriate sanction to be assessed for Respondent's violations. An agency is not required to give presumptively binding effect to an Administrative Law Judge's recommendation regarding sanctions. Granekv. Tex. State Bd. ofmed. Exam 'rs, 172 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. App. - Austin 2005) The justification for modifying the proposed sanction in this case is that a permit suspension, or payment of a substantial penalty in lieu thereof, is more appropriate given the particular circumstances of this case. All motions, requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions oflaw, and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied, unless specifically adopted herein. Page 2 of 4

15 DocuSign Envelope ID: D4609F10-16D0-4FB0-814C-AD9BC IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 12:01 a.m. on the 16th day of May 2018, and shall remain suspended for 67 (sixty-seven) CONSECUTIVE DAYS, UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $20, (twenty thonsand one hnndred dollars) is paid IN FULL ON OR BEFORE the 8th day of May This Order will become final and enforceable on the 1st day of May 2018, unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 30th day of April SIGNED this the 5th day of April 2018, at Austin, Texas. Matthew R. Chaplin, LL.M. Deputy Executive Director Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner indicated below on this the 5th day ofapril Martin Wilson, LL.M. Assistant General Counsel Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Monica Garza ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE State Office ofadministrative Hearings 300 W. 15th Street, Suite 504 Austin, TX VIA FACSIMILE: (512) Page 3 of 4

16 DocuSign Envelope ID: D4609F10-16D0-4FB0-814C-AD9BC Meacham LLC d/b/a Buck's Cabaret RESPONDENT P.O. Box Flower Mound, TX VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL, CMRRR # Timothy Griffith ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT IO I East Park Blvd., Suite 600 Plano, TX VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL, CMRRR # AND VIA FACSIMILE: (855) Edgar Korzeniowski ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER T ABC Legal Division VIA edgar.korze11iowski@iabc.texas.gov Page 4 of 4

17 TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE DOCKET NUMBERS: , REGISTER NUMBER: NAME: 2345 MEACHAM, LLC TRADENAME: BUCK'S CABARET ADDRESS: P.O. Box , Flower Mound, Texas DUE DATE: May 8, 2018 PERMITS OR LICENSES: MB753709, PE, LB AMOUNT OF PENALTY: $20, Amount remitted$. Date remitted You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your pe1mits and licenses suspended if an amount for civil penalty is included on the attached order. YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE. AFTER THAT DATE YOUR LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON THE ORDER. Mail this form with your payment to: TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION P.O. Box Austin, Texas Overnight Delivery Address: 5806 Mesa Dr., Austin, Texas You must pay by postal money order, certified check, or cashier's check. No personal or company check nor partial payment accepted. Your payment will be returned if anything is incorrect. You must pay the entire amount ofthe penalty assessed. Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket # on your payment. Signature ofresponsible Party Street Address P.O.BoxNo. City State Zip Code Area Code/Telephone No. Page 1 of 2

18 Page 2 of 2