Sheetz is my favorite convenience store of all time (Bucc-ees is a close second). I am enthused to learn that Justice Scalia is a fan of Sheetz! From his opinion in Loughrin v. United States:

Suppose I resolve to purchase (with the two dollars in my billfold) a coffee at the first convenience store I pass on my way to work. I am indifferent to what store that might be. I catch sight of a 7-Eleven, pull in, and, with my cash, buy the drink. That it is a 7-Eleven coffee rather than a Sheetz coffee is “wholly fortuitous,” ibid. Still, no one would say that I had not obtained 7-Eleven coffee by means of my two dollars. So too with the handbag swindler: Regardless of whether the cash is the victim’s or, technically, the bank’s, and regard- less of whether the swindler cared which it was, would we not say that the fraudster has obtained it by means of the trick?