Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices 20033 

1Specifically, that Respondent had previously 

held a West Virginia medical license. 

2While the Show Cause Order will be dismissed, 

under 21 U.S.C. 823(f), Respondent is not entitled 

to be registered until he is again ‘‘authorized to 

dispense * * * controlled substances under the 

laws of the State in which he practices.’’ 

comply with a condition imposed by the 

Board’s previous order. Mot. for Summ. 

Disp., at 1–2. Citing agency precedent, 

the Government argued that because 

Respondent lacks authority to dispense 

controlled substances in California, he 

is not authorized to hold a DEA 

registration in the State and his 

registration should be revoked. Id. As 

support for the motion, the Government 

attached the various MBC orders, as 

well as a printout of Respondent’s 

registration status, which indicated that 

his registration was to expire on January 

31, 2010. Mot. for Summ. Disp., at Exs. 

1–4. 

On November 16, 2009, Respondent 

filed an opposition to the motion. 

Respondent’s Opposition at 4. Therein, 

Respondent argued that the MBC’s order 

‘‘is not reasonable and is fraught with 

procedural misconduct, 

misrepresentations and the subsequent 

illegitimate denial of due process.’’ Id. 

On November 25, 2009, following a 

further round of briefing by both parties 

on an issue of no material 

consequence,1 the ALJ issued her 

Recommended Decision. Therein, she 

found that it was undisputed that 

Respondent lacks authority to dispense 

controlled substances in California and 

that under the Controlled Substances 

Act, DEA therefore lacks authority to 

continue his registration. ALJ Dec. at 5. 

The ALJ thus granted the Government’s 

motion and recommended that 

Respondent’s registration be revoked. Id 

Neither party filed exceptions to the 

ALJ’s Decision. On January 8, 2010, the 

ALJ forwarded the record to my Office 

for final agency action. Upon receipt of 

the record, it was determined that while 

Respondent’s registration was to expire 

on January 31, 2010, he had yet to file 

a renewal application. A subsequent 

query of the Agency’s registration 

records confirmed that Respondent 

allowed his registration to expire and 

did not file a renewal application. 

Under DEA precedent, ‘‘if a registrant 

has not submitted a timely renewal 

application prior to the expiration date, 

then the registration expires and there is 

nothing to revoke.’’ Ronald J. Riegel, 63 

FR 67132, 67133 (1998). Moreover, in 

the absence of an application (whether 

timely filed or not), there is nothing to 

act upon. Accordingly, because 

Respondent has allowed his registration 

to expire and has not filed any 

application, this case is now moot and 

will be dismissed.2

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 824, as well as 21 CFR 

0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby order that 

the Order to Show Cause issued to 

Thomas E. Mitchell, M.D., be, and it 

hereby is, dismissed. This Order is 

effective immediately. 

Dated: April 1, 2011. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8531 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 10–8] 

Robert Charles Ley, D.O. ; Dismissal of 

Proceeding 

On September 28, 2009, I, the then 

Deputy Administrator of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration, issued an 

Order to Show Cause and Immediate 

Suspension of Registration (‘‘Order’’) to 

Robert Charles Ley, D.O. (Respondent), 

of Kihei, Hawaii. Order to Show Cause 

at 1. The Order, which also sought the 

revocation of Respondent’s registration 

and the denial of any pending 

applications to renew his registration, 

alleged, inter alia, that Respondent had 

issued numerous prescriptions for 

controlled substances to undercover 

police officers which lacked a legitimate 

medical purpose and therefore violated 

Federal law. Id. at 2. 

On October 2, 2009, Respondent was 

served with the Order, and on October 

7, 2009, he requested a hearing on the 

allegations. The matter was then 

assigned to an Agency Administrative 

Law Judge (ALJ), who proceeded to 

conduct pre-hearing procedures. 

On November 4, 2009, the 

Government moved for summary 

disposition on the ground that the State 

of Hawaii had suspended Respondent’s 

state controlled substances registration 

and that he was therefore no longer 

entitled to hold a registration under the 

Controlled Substances Act. See 21 

U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3). Finding that 

there were no material facts in dispute, 

the ALJ granted the motion, 

recommended that I revoke 

Respondent’s registration and deny any 

pending applications, and forwarded 

the record to me for final agency action. 

Order Granting Summary Disposition 

and Recommended Decision, at 6. 

On January 12, 2010, the State of 

Hawaii re-instated Respondent’s state 

registration. As a consequence, the 

Government was no longer entitled to a 

Final Order adopting the ALJ’s 

Recommended Decision. Accordingly, 

on March 2, 2010, the Government 

moved to remand the case for further 

proceedings. Motion to Remand Case for 

Further Proceedings, at 1. 

Respondent did not, however, file an 

application to renew his registration 

which was due to expire on March 31, 

2010. Respondent’s registration 

therefore expired on March 31, 2010. 

Accordingly, on May 5, 2010, the 

Government moved to terminate the 

proceeding on the ground that this case 

is now moot. Motion to Terminate 

Administrative Proceedings, at 2. On 

May 26, 2010, I therefore ordered that 

Respondent file a response to the 

Government’s motion; I further ordered 

that if Respondent contended that the 

matter was not moot, he should 

specifically address what collateral 

consequence attach as a result of the 

issuance of the immediate suspension, 

whether he intends to remain in 

professional practice, and why he failed 

to file a renewal application. See Order 

at 1–2 (May 26, 2010). 

On June 25, 2010, Respondent filed 

his response. See Respondent’s 

Memorandum In Response to Motion to 

Terminate Administrative Proceedings. 

Therein, Respondent ‘‘maintain[s] that 

the summary suspension of his DEA 

registration * * * was improper and 

unjustified, [but] due to physical 

conditions beyond his control, [he] is no 

longer in a position to pursue his 

administrative remedies.’’ Id. at 1. 

Respondent therefore ‘‘does not object to 

the termination’’ of the proceeding. Id. 

DEA has previously held that ‘‘if a 

registrant has not submitted a timely 

renewal application prior to the 

expiration date, then the registration 

expires and there is nothing to revoke.’’ 

Ronald J. Riegel, 63 FR 67132 (1998). 

While DEA has recognized a limited 

exception to the mootness rule in cases 

which commence with the issuance of 

an immediate suspension order because 

of the collateral consequences which 

may attach with the issuance of an 

immediate suspension, see William R. 

Lockridge, 71 FR 77791, 77797 (2006), 

Respondent has not identified any 

collateral consequence caused by the 

order. Indeed, Respondent does not 

object to the termination of this 

proceeding. Accordingly, this 

proceeding is now moot and the 

Government’s motion to terminate the 

proceeding will be granted. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 824, as well as 28 CFR 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
20034 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices 

1The Order also alleged that Respondent’s 

Registration does not expire until April 30, 2012. 

Show Cause Order at 1. Because Respondent does 

not dispute this, I find that he has a current 

registration. 

2Therein, Respondent also requested that the 

Administrative Law Judge ‘‘issue a writ of Habeas 

Corpus to allow [him] to have a personal hearing 

in Springfield, Virginia in the interest of true 

[j]ustice.’’ Response to Order to Show Cause, at 2. 

0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby grant the 

Government’s motion to terminate the 

proceeding. I further order that the 

Order to Show Cause and Immediate 

Suspension of Registration issued to 

Robert Charles Ley, D.O, be, and it 

hereby is, dismissed. 

Dated: April 1, 2011. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8544 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 10–28] 

Louisiana All Snax, Inc.; Dismissal of 

Proceeding 

On January 21, 2010, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order To 

Show Cause to Louisiana All Snax, Inc. 

(Respondent), of Baton Rouge, 

Louisiana. The Show Cause Order 

proposed the revocation of Respondent 

DEA’s Certificate of Registration, which 

authorized it to distribute the list I 

chemicals ephedrine and 

pseudoephedrine, on the ground that, 

effective August 15, 2009, the State of 

Louisiana made both chemicals 

Schedule V controlled substances; that 

those persons who distribute these 

substances ‘‘must possess a license 

issued by the Louisiana Board of 

Pharmacy’’; that Respondent ‘‘does not 

possess’’ the necessary license; and that 

DEA must therefore revoke its 

registration. Show Cause Order at 1 

(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), La. Rev. Stat. 

Ann. §§ 40:973 & 40:1049.1). 

On February 18, 2010, Respondent 

requested a hearing on the allegations. 

In his letter, Respondent’s owner stated 

that it had ‘‘stopped distributing 

ephedrine products prior to August 15, 

2009 and do[es] not plan to distribute 

any as long as Act 314 * * * is in effect. 

My registration certificate will expire in 

March 2010 and we do not plan to 

renew it because we can not distribute 

legally.’’ Letter of Robert Howerter to 

Hearing Clerk (Jan. 28, 2010). Mr. 

Howerter further wrote: ‘‘We do not 

understand why the DEA is revoking a 

certificate we can not use and will 

expire in a little over a month especially 

since we do not plan to renew it.’’ Id. 

‘‘As a token of [his] good faith,’’ Mr. 

Howerter ‘‘attached [his] certificate to 

[his] letter.’’ Id. 

The matter was then placed on the 

docket of the DEA Office of 

Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), and 

on February 22, 2010, the ALJ ordered 

the Government to determine whether 

Respondent had filed a timely renewal 

application and to provide evidence 

supporting its allegation that 

Respondent lacked the requisite State 

authority. Order Directing the 

Government To Provide Proof That 

Respondent Lacks State Authority To 

Handle Controlled Substances and 

Briefing Schedule, at 1. 

Two days later, the Government 

moved for summary disposition or to 

dismiss on the grounds of mootness. 

Therein, the Government noted that it 

had determined that Respondent’s 

registration ‘‘expires on March 31, 2010’’ 

and that, ‘‘[a]s of the date of this filing, 

Respondent has not filed an application 

for renewal of its registration, and in its 

request for a hearing Respondent 

admitted that it does not plan to renew 

its DEA registration.’’ Motion for Summ. 

Disp., at 2. While the Government also 

provided a copy of a letter from the 

Louisiana Board of Pharmacy to a 

Diversion Investigator stating that 

Respondent does not hold a Louisiana 

Controlled Dangerous Substances 

License and argued that ‘‘DEA must 

therefore revoke Respondent’s DEA 

registration,’’ the Government also 

observed that ‘‘[d]ismissal of this matter 

will also be appropriate * * * after 

March 31, 2010, on grounds of 

mootness, if Respondent does not apply 

for renewal of its registration.’’ Id. at 3– 

4. 

Respondent did not file a response to 

the Government’s motion. ALJ Dec. at 2. 

On March 8, 2010, the ALJ granted the 

Government’s motion for summary 

disposition based on Respondent’s lack 

of authority under State law to handle 

listed chemicals. Id. at 5–6. However, 

the ALJ also noted that under Agency 

precedent, ‘‘‘[i]f a registrant has not 

submitted a timely renewal application 

prior to the expiration date, then the 

registration expires and there is nothing 

to revoke.’ ’’ Id. at 2 (quoting David L. 

Wood, M.D., 72 FR 54936, 54937 (2007) 

(quoting Ronald J. Riegel, D.V.M., 63 FR 

67132, 67133 (1998))). Noting that the 

Agency’s regulation imposes a 25-day 

period to allow the parties to file 

exceptions prior to the ALJ’s forwarding 

of the record to my Office for final 

agency action, the ALJ observed that by 

the time a decision is issued ‘‘on the 

proposed revocation * * * there will be 

nothing to revoke and the issue will be 

moot.’’ Id. at n.2. The ALJ thus 

explained that ‘‘dismissal of this 

proceeding on mootness grounds * * * 

will be required when the matter is 

transmitted to’’ me. Id. at 2. 

Having taken Official Notice of the 

registration records of the Agency, I find 

that Respondent’s registration expired 

on March 31, 2010, and that Mr. 

Howerter was true to his word that 

Respondent did ‘‘not plan to renew it.’’ 

Because Respondent’s registration has 

now expired and there is no pending 

renewal application, there is neither a 

registration, nor an application, to act 

upon. Accordingly, the case is now 

moot. See, e.g., Riegel, 63 FR at 67133. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well 

as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I order 

that the Order To Show Cause issued to 

Louisiana All Snax, Inc., be, and it 

hereby is, dismissed. This order is 

effective immediately. 

Dated: April 1, 2011. 

Michelle M. Leonhart, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8541 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 10–25] 

Calvin Ramsey, M.D.; Revocation of 

Registration 

On December 18, 2009, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause to Calvin Ramsey, M.D. 

(Respondent), of Millington, Tennessee. 

The Show Cause Order proposed the 

revocation of Respondent’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration, AR7086689, 

as a practitioner, and the denial of any 

pending application to renew or modify 

the registration, on the ground that he 

does not ‘‘have authority to practice 

medicine or handle controlled 

substances in the State of Mississippi,’’ 

the State in which he is registered with 

DEA.1 Show Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 

U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(4)). 

On January 8, 2010, Respondent, who 

is currently incarcerated at the Federal 

Correctional Institute Memphis Satellite 

Camp in Millington, Tennessee, 

requested a hearing on the allegations 2


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES