ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. 1-23-320, et seq. (Supp. 1995), upon request for
a contested case hearing by Respondent Gateway Enterprises, Inc. ("Gateway") subsequent to the issuance by Petitioner
Department of Revenue ("DOR") of citations for alleged administrative violations of the Video Gaming Act by Gateway at
Units 4, 9, and 10, 1807 Decker Boulevard, Columbia, South Carolina, on May 15, 1996. DOR alleges that Gateway
committed fourteen (14) separate violations of the Video Gaming Act, including the operation of nine (9) coin-operated
machines at two establishments in which previous licenses have been revoked, in violation of S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1995) and operation of an unlicensed machine at a third location, in violation of S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1995). DOR seeks: (1) revocation of video poker licenses for all machines located at Units 4, 9,
and 10, 1807 Decker Boulevard, Columbia, South Carolina; (2) assessment of fines totaling $40,000; and (3) the
assessment and levy of a $1,625 license fee on the unlicensed machine. Gateway denies its actions constitute a
violation of the Video Gaming Act.
A contested case hearing was held in the matter at the Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia, South
Carolina, on August 28, 1996. Based upon the relevant and probative evidence and the applicable law, as set forth in
the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, all nine (9) licenses held by Gateway for machines located at
Units 9 and 10 are revoked pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2804(A), 12-21-2786, and 12-21-2788 (Supp. 1995).
A fine of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) is imposed for each of the nine violations. Additionally, Gateway is assessed a
fine of $2,500 for violation of S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2720(A)(3) and 12-21-2776(A) (Supp. 1995) pursuant to S.C.
Code Ann. 12-21-2738 (Supp. 1995).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1807 Decker Boulevard, Columbia, South Carolina is a strip shopping center. Several of the individual units in
the shopping center are being and/or have been used as video poker parlors. At the time the violation citations were
issued against Gateway, Gateway leased and operated video poker parlors in Units 4, 9, and 10. Those units were
previously leased and operated by Video Gaming Consultants, Inc., D.D.B., Inc., Mid-South, Inc., Coastal Coin, Inc., and
George D. Vinovitch (hereafter collectively or individually referred to as "Vinovitch"). H. Buck Cutts, Esquire, is counsel
for Vinovitch and Gateway.
By Order dated August 17, 1995, Administrative Law Judge John Geathers (incorporated herein by reference)
revoked Vinovitch's video gaming machine licenses for machines located at Units 9 and 10. One of the licenses
revoked was Type III Coin-Operated Device License
#44334. Vinovitch timely appealed the decision to the Circuit Court of Horry County as Case No. 95-CP-26-2547.
Upon Vinovitch's Motion, Circuit Court Judge David H. Maring, Sr. issued a temporary stay of the license revocations on
September 18, 1995, pending further order. After a full hearing on the appeal, Judge Maring signed a Final Order
(incorporated herein by reference) affirming the administrative law judge's Order revoking the licenses and dissolving
the temporary stay. Judge Maring's Final Order was signed May 2, 1996, but filed with the Horry County Clerk of Court
on May 15, 1996. Vinovitch filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judge Maring's Final Order on May 13, 1996, which was
denied on July 19, 1996.
On May 14, 1996, Gateway applied for and was granted Type III Coin-Operated Device Licenses for nine (9)
video poker machines, license numbers 036247 through 036255, inclusive. On the following day, May 15, 1996, at
approximately 2:00 p.m., DOR officers entered and inspected Unit 4. Discovering a machine in operation bearing Type
III Coin-Operated Device License # 44334, one of the revoked Vinovitch licenses, DOR officers issued a Regulatory
Violation and Proposed Assessment Report to Gateway, alleging a violation of S.C. Code Ann.
12-21-2720, operation of a type III machine without a valid license. On May 17, 1996, at approximately 12:15 p.m.,
DOR officers entered and inspected Units 9 and 10. Upon discovering video poker machines in operation, DOR officers
issued a Regulatory Violation and Proposed Assessment Report to Gateway, alleging a violation S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2804, operation of machines at a location in which licenses have been revoked. The machines in operation at Units 9
and 10 bore license numbers 036247 through 036255, inclusive, the same licenses issued to Gateway on May 14, 1996.
By letter from DOR dated May 30, 1996, to Gateway's counsel, DOR amended the above Regulatory Violation and
Proposed Assessment Reports to fourteen (14) separate violations against Gateway, one for each machine in operation
at Units 4, 9, and 10 on or about May 17, 1996. According to the amended citation, DOR seeks revocation of all
fourteen (14) licenses and imposition of fines totaling $35,000.00. The contested case hearing was conducted August
28, 1996.
DISCUSSION
This case involves a novel issue relating to the licensing and operation of video game machines at
establishments in which previous video game machine licenses have been revoked. Intertwined with that question are
issues of statutory interpretation; the effectiveness and finality of judgments; burden of proof; stays; and notice.
Statutory Interpretation of S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1995)
S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1995) provides in pertinent part:
[DOR] shall revoke the licenses of machines located in an establishment which fails to meet the
requirements of this section. No license may be issued for a machine in an establishment in which
a license has been revoked for a period of six months from the date of revocation.
Gateway argues that 12-21-2804(A) is not a prohibition to operate video machines
at a location in which a license has been revoked, but rather a directive to DOR not to issue licenses for machines at
such a location. DOR asserts that because licenses are not issued for specific locations, but are instead moveable and
useable at any location within the state not expressly prohibited by law, the clear meaning and intent of the statute
is to prohibit, for six months, the operation of video machines at any establishment in which a license has been
revoked.
The licensing, placement, and operation of video poker machines is subject to Title 12, Chapter 21, Articles
19, 20, and 21 of the S.C. Code, as amended. Pending the issuance of a final, binding order affirming the license
revocations for the Vinovitch machines at Units 9 and 10, Vinovitch or any other operator properly licensed could
operate video poker machines at those locations. Accordingly, upon meeting the applicable criteria and paying the
requisite license fees, the issuance of video poker machine licenses to Gateway for machines to be operated at Units 9
and 10 was proper. Once the revocation of the Vinovitch licenses at Units 9 and 10 took effect, however, Units 9 and
10 became "dead zones" for video poker purposes for the following six months under S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2804(A).
No Type III video machines, whether licensed in the name of Vinovitch, Gateway, or any other entity, can lawfully be
operated at Units 9 and 10 during that period. Any licenses on machines in operation at Units 9 or 10 during that
six-month period, are subject to revocation by DOR by operation of law, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann.
12-21-2720(A)(3), 12-21-2786, 12-21-2788, 12-21-2804(A), and 12-54-90(A) (Supp. 1995).
Burden of Proof
Gateway next contends that the proper burden of proof in this case is clear and convincing evidence and
that DOR failed to carry its burden. In professional disciplinary proceedings conducted under the APA, such as one
involving a physician, the required standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence. Anonymous (M-156-90) v.
State Board of Medical Examiners, S.C. Ct. Appeals Opinion No. 2245, filed July 15, 1996. Unless specifically provided by
law, however, in all other contested case hearings, such as those heard by the Administrative Law Judge Division, the
fact finder must weigh the evidence, and make a decision on the merits based upon the preponderance of evidence.
See Id.; See also National Health Corp. v. South Carolina Dept. of Health and Environmental Control, 298 S.C. 373, 380
S.E.2d 841 (S.C.App. 1989). The attempted revocation of a video poker license does not rise to the level of a
professional disciplinary proceeding and thus does not require the application of the higher standard of clear and
convincing evidence. In this case, DOR bears the burden of proving its case by a preponderance of evidence.
Notice
Gateway also asserts that DOR failed to comply with notice requirements set forth in S.C. Code Ann. 1-23-370(C), regarding the procedures for license revocation. The basis of that position seems to be Gateway's belief that
DOR must issue a warning and allow an opportunity for compliance before issuing a violation citation. Section 1-23-370 merely acknowledges a licensee's basic due process rights. Gateway does not contend that notice of the charges
against it or notice of the hearing were inadequate. At the hearing, Gateway was afforded an opportunity to cross
examine DOR's witnesses and offer evidence of compliance.
Finality of Judgment and Effect of the Stay
Finally, Gateway asserts the violations must be dismissed because they were issued prior to the effective date
of the Order revoking the Vinovitch licenses. Gateway cites Rule 62(a), SCRCP, as requiring ten days from the entry of
judgment to lapse before the terms of the judgment can be enforced. While Rule 62(a) does provide for an automatic
ten-day stay of execution from the date of entry of judgment, Rule 62(c) and (d) are the applicable subdivisions for
stays of injunctive or appellate matters. Upon appeal of the Vinovitch case, Judge Maring issued a temporary stay of
the license revocations "pending further Order." After a full hearing on the appeal, Judge Maring signed a Final Order
affirming the administrative law judge's Order revoking the licenses and expressly dissolving the temporary stay. The
Order dissolving the stay was effective upon filing on May 15, 1996. Further, Gateway's Motion to Alter or Amend, filed
May 13, 1996, did not automatically stay the license revocations. In his discretion, during the pendency of the Motion
to Alter or Amend, Judge Maring could have continued or reinstated the temporary stay under SCRCP Rule 62(b). He
did not.
Although signed and dated on May 2, 1996, Judge Maring's Order affirming the decision of the Administrative
Law Judge Division and dissolving the stay in the Vinovitch case was not final and binding until it was entered and
recorded by the clerk of court in Horry County at
9:18 a.m., May 15, 1996. A judicial pronouncement is not a final ruling on the merits nor is it binding on the parties
until it has been reduced to writing, signed by the judge and delivered for recordation. Case v. Case, 243 S.C. 447,
134 S.E.2d 394 (1964); Hilton Head Resort Four Seasons Center Horizontal Property Regime Council of Co-Owners, Inc.
v. Resort Inv. Corp., 311 S.C. 394, 429 S.E.2d 459, 462 (Ct.App. 1993); Bayne v. Bass, 302 S.C. 208, 394 S.E.2d 726, 727
(Ct.App. 1990); Rules 52, 54, and 58, SCRCP. Therefore, while the parties or counsel in the present case may have had prior knowledge or notice of the contents of Judge Maring's Order, the Order had no
legal effect until filed on May 15, 1996.
Violations and Penalties
Gateway violated S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1995) by operating a
Type III video game machine in Unit 4, 1807 Decker Boulevard, without a valid license. Type III Coin-Operated Device
License #44334 was revoked and invalid as of 9:18 a.m., May 15, 1996. For that violation, Gateway must pay a
mandatory penalty of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500) pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2738 (Supp.
1995). No license assessment fee, pro-rated or in full, is due since the original fee was paid at the time of issuance
and no new license was subsequently issued.
Gateway also committed nine (9) violations of S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2804(A), by operating nine (9) video
game machines at Units 9 and 10, 1807 Decker Boulevard, during the six-month period immediately following the
effective date of the revocation of the Vinovitch licenses at those locations. While the licenses were properly issued to
Gateway and affixed to machines at Units 9 and 10 on May 14, 1996, prior to the effective date of the revocations, the
Gateway licenses were required to be revoked and surrendered as of 9:18 a.m., May 15, 1996.
For each of the nine violations of S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2804(A), all of the licenses affixed to the machines
in Units 9 and 10 are revoked. Pursuant to subsection (F) of
S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2804(F), a person violating subsection (A) is subject to a fine of up to five thousand dollars for
each violation. A fine of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) per violation is imposed upon Gateway. A greater fine is not
imposed In light of the fact that Gateway paid DOR $14,625 in license fees on May 14, 1996, for the nine licenses now
revoked (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5) and because the licenses were rightfully issued and machines were legally
being operated at the time of their issuance.
The total penalty in this case is a fine of $11,500 and revocation of nine licenses. Because of the novelty of
the issues presented and reasonable uncertainty of the interpretation of the
statutes in question, Gateway is not receiving the maximum penalties allowed. Such leniency should not be expected
if future violations are committed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. DOR is an agency of the State of South Carolina charged with the regulation, administration, and enforcement
of the Video Game Machines Act.
2. Gateway Enterprises, Inc., is a corporation located at 2751 Highway 17, Suite A, Garden City, South Carolina,
involved in the video gaming industry.
3. Gateway, with Albert J. Deltondo as its principal, commenced operation on or about
May 10, 1996, with the purchase of certain business interests from Video Gaming Consultants, Inc. and Mid-South, Inc., continuing without interruption 95% of the predecessors' business.
4. 1807 Decker Boulevard, Columbia, South Carolina is a strip shopping center. Several of the individual units in
the shopping center are being and/or have been used as video poker parlors.
5. Units 9 and 10 at 1807 Decker Boulevard were previously leased and operated by Video Gaming Consultants,
Inc., D.D.B., Inc., Mid-South, Inc., Coastal Coin, Inc., with video poker machines licensed in the name of
George D. Vinovitch.
6. By Order dated August 17, 1995, Administrative Law Judge John Geathers revoked Vinovitch's video gaming
machine licenses for machines located at Units 9 and 10.
7. One of the licenses revoked in Judge Geathers' August 17, 1995 Order was Type III Coin-Operated Device
License #44334.
8. Vinovitch timely appealed Judge Geathers' August 17, 1995 Order to the Circuit Court of Horry County, filed
as Case No. 95-CP-26-2547. Upon Vinovitch's Motion, Circuit Court Judge David H. Maring, Sr. issued a
temporary stay of the license revocations on September 18, 1995, pending further order.
9. After a full hearing on the appeal, Judge Maring signed a Final Order affirming the administrative law judge's
Order revoking the licenses and dissolving the temporary stay. Judge Maring's Final Order was signed May 2,
1996, but filed with the Horry County Clerk of Court on May 15, 1996, at 9:18 a.m.
10. Vinovitch filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judge Maring's Final Order on May 13, 1996, which was denied July
19, 1996.
11. On or about May 10, 1996, Gateway leased and began operation of video poker parlors in Units 3, 4, 9, and 10,
1807 Decker Boulevard.
12. On May 14, 1996, Gateway applied for and was granted Type III Coin-Operated Device Licenses for nine (9)
video poker machines, license numbers 036247 through 036255, inclusive, and affixed those licenses to video gaming machines located at Units 9 and 10, 1807 Decker Boulevard.
13. On May 15, 1996, at approximately 2:00 p.m. DOR officers entered and inspected Unit 4. Upon discovering a
machine in operation bearing Type III Coin-Operated Device License
#44334, one of the revoked Vinovitch licenses, DOR officers issued a Regulatory Violation and Proposed
Assessment Report to Gateway alleging a violation of S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2720, operation of a type III
machine without a valid license, and the officers seized License #44334.
14. On May 17, 1996, at approximately 12:15 p.m., DOR officers entered and inspected Units 9 and 10 and
observed video poker machines in operation. The officers issued a Regulatory Violation and Proposed
Assessment Report to Gateway, alleging a violation S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2804, operation of machines at a
location in which licenses have been revoked.
15. The machines in operation at Units 9 and 10 on May 17, 1996, bore license numbers 036247 through 036255,
inclusive, the same licenses issued by DOR on May 14, 1996, to Gateway.
16. By DOR letter of May 30, 1996, to Gateway's counsel, DOR amended the above Regulatory Violation and
Proposed Assessment Reports to fourteen (14) separate violations against Gateway, one for each machine in
operation at Units 4, 9, and 10 on or about May 17, 1996.
17. DOR seeks revocation of fourteen (14) licenses and imposition of fines totaling $40,000.00.
18. A contested case hearing was conducted August 28, 1996.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Finding of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law by the preponderance of evidence,
the following:
1. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. 12-4-30(D) (Supp. 1995) and S.C. Code Ann. 1-23-320 (Supp. 1995), the
Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter.
2. The licensing, placement, and operation of video poker machines is subject to Title 12, Chapter 21, Articles
19, 20, and 21 of the S.C. Code, as amended.
3. Licenses issued by the State are not rights or property, but are rather privileges granted in the exercise of
the police power of the State to be used and enjoyed only so long as the restrictions and conditions
governing them are complied with. The tribunal authorized to grant the issuance of a license is also
authorized, for cause, to revoke or deny it. Feldman v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d
22 (1943).
4. In video poker license violation cases, DOR bears the burden of proving its case by a preponderance of
evidence and not the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence applied in professional disciplinary
proceedings, such as one involving a physician. See Anonymous (M-156-90) v. State Board of Medical
Examiners, S.C. Ct. Appeals Opinion No. 2245, filed July 15, 1996; See also National Health Corp. v. South
Carolina Dept. of Health and Environmental Control, 298 S.C. 373, 380 S.E.2d 841 (S.C.App. 1989).
5. S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1995) of the Video Game Machines Act ("Act") provides, in pertinent
part:
[DOR] shall revoke the licenses of machines located in an establishment which fails to meet
the requirements of this section. No license may be issued for a machine in an
establishment in which a license has been revoked for a period of six months from the
date of revocation.
6. Video game machine licenses are not issued for specific locations, but are instead moveable and useable at
any location within the state not expressly prohibited by law.
7. Words used in a statute should be given their ordinary and popular meaning, unless there is something in the
statute which requires a different interpretation. Hughes v. Edwards, 265 S.C. 529, 220 S.E.2d 231 (1975).
8. The language of S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1995) is not unconstitutionally vague or violative of
due process. "The constitutional standard for vagueness is the practical criterion of fair notice to those to
whom the law applies." Huber v. State Board of Physical Therapy Examiners, ___ S.C. ___, 446 S.E.2d 433
(1994); Toussaint v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 303 S.C. 316, 400 S.E.2d 488 (1991).
9. The clear meaning and intent of the 12-21-2804(A) is to prohibit, for six months, the operation of video machines at any establishment in which a license has been revoked.
10. A judicial pronouncement must be reduced to writing, signed by the judge and delivered for recordation
before it is a final ruling on the merits and binding on the parties. Case v. Case, 243 S.C. 447, 134 S.E.2d
394 (1964); Hilton Head Resort Four Seasons Center Horizontal Property Regime Council of Co-Owners, Inc. v.
Resort Inv. Corp., 311 S.C. 394, 429 S.E.2d 459, 462 (Ct.App. 1993); Bayne v. Bass, 302 S.C. 208, 394 S.E.2d 726,
727 (Ct.App. 1990); Rules 52, 54, and 58, SCRCP. Therefore, while the parties or counsel in the present case
may have had prior knowledge or notice of the contents of Judge Maring's Order, the Order in Horry County
Case No. 95-CP-26-2547 ("the Vinovitch case") had no legal effect until filed on May 15, 1996.
11. The temporary stay ordered by Judge Maring in the Vinovitch matter, by Order dated September 18, 1995,
was expressly dissolved effective upon filing of his Final Order
on May 15, 1996, without a ten-day stay of execution from the date of entry of judgment. SCRCP Rule 62(c)
and (d). Vinovitch's Motion to Alter or Amend, filed May 13, 1996, did not automatically stay the license
revocations.
12. Judge Maring's Order affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge Division and dissolving the stay
in the Vinovitch case was final and binding upon being entered and recorded by the clerk of court in Horry
County at 9:18 a.m., May 15, 1996.
13. Prior to the effectiveness of a final, binding order affirming the license revocations for the Vinovitch
machines at Units 9 and 10, Vinovitch or any other operator properly licensed could have operated video
poker machines at those locations. Accordingly, upon meeting the applicable criteria and paying the
requisite license fees, the issuance of video poker machine licenses to Gateway for machines to be operated
at Units 9 and 10 was proper. Once the revocation of the Vinovitch licenses at Units 9 and 10 took effect at
9:18 a.m. on May 15, 1996; however, Units 9 and 10 became "dead zones" for video poker purposes for the
following six months under S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2804(A). No Type III video machines, whether licensed in
the name of Vinovitch, Gateway, or any other entity, could lawfully be operated at Units 9 and 10 during that
period.
14. Any licenses on machines in operation at Units 9 or 10 during that six-month period were subject to
revocation by DOR by operation of law pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2720(A)(3), 12-21-2786, 12-21-2788, 12-21-2804(A), and 12-54-90(A) (Supp. 1995).
15. Gateway committed nine (9) violations of S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2804(A), by operating nine (9) video game
machines at Units 9 and 10, 1807 Decker Boulevard, during the six- month period immediately following the
effective date of the revocation of the Vinovitch licenses at those locations. While the licenses were properly
issued to Gateway and affixed to machines at Units 9 and 10 on May 14, 1996, prior to the effective date of
the revocations, the Gateway licenses were required to be revoked and surrendered as of
9:18 a.m., May 15, 1996.
16. For each of the nine violations of S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2804(A), all of the licenses affixed to the machines
in Units 9 and 10 must be revoked.
17. An administrative law judge possesses the same powers at chambers or in open court as do circuit court
judges and may issue such remedial writs as are necessary to give effect to its jurisdiction. S.C. Code Ann.
1-23-630 (Supp. 1995).
18. S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2804(F) (Supp. 1994) provides that a person who violates S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1994) is subject to a fine of up to $5,000.
19. Gateway violated S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1995) by operating a
Type III video game machine in Unit 4, 1807 Decker Boulevard, without a valid license. Type III Coin-Operated Device License #44334, was revoked and invalid as of 9:18 a.m., May 15, 1996.
20. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2738 (Supp. 1995), a person in violation of S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1995) must pay a mandatory penalty of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500).
21. The due process rights afforded licensees in revocation proceedings under S.C. Code Ann. 1-23-370(c)
(1976) were complied with in this case. Gateway was afforded adequate notice of charges and given an
opportunity to confront adverse witnesses and offer evidence of compliance in a de novo contested case
hearing.
22. Pursuant to ALJD Rule 29(B), any issues or motions raised at the hearing but not addressed in this Order are
deemed denied.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the following Type III coin-operated device licenses, affixed to video
gaming machines located at Units 9 or 10, 1807 Decker Boulevard, Columbia, South Carolina, on or about May 17, 1996,
are hereby revoked: 036247, 036248, 036249, 036250, 036251, 036252, 036253, 036254, and 036255. Gateway Enterprises,
Inc., is ordered to pay to DOR a fine of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for each of the licensed machines in operation in
Units 9 and 10 on or about May 17, 1996, constituting nine separate violations.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no Type III video gaming machines shall be operated at Units 9 or 10, 1807
Decker Boulevard, Columbia, South Carolina, for a period of six months from the effective date of the revocation of
licenses numbers 036247, 036248, 036249, 036250, 036251, 036252, 036253, 036254, and 036255.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gateway must pay a mandatory penalty of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($2,500) for violation of S.C. Code Ann. 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1995).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the revocation of the nine licenses and the payment of the total fine of
Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($11,500) is effective upon the expiration of ten (10) days after the date of this
Order. The filing of a motion for reconsideration or petition for appeal shall not, of itself, stay this Order beyond that
ten-day period nor excuse or delay the compliance with the terms of this Order.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
October 18, 1996 |
