Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Notices 80189 

1Most of Registrant’s CAP concerned Ms. 

Nwoga’s allegations about ‘‘the DEA’s . . . failure 

to follow their own monitoring policy, thus, 

allowing the Baltimore city streets to become 

flooded with controlled narcotics.’’ RFAA EX 5, at 

2. The CAP stated that she ‘‘satisfied all the 

requirements of whistle blower,’’ but ‘‘[r]ather than 

protect . . . [her] the DEA began an illegal under 

cover [sic] operation that spanned many years’’ and 

entrapped her. Id. at 2–3. According to the CAP, 

‘‘[t]his case is wrought with very ugly racism, antifeminism, and anti-immigrant overtones in the 

Baltimore City DEA. The criminal case is under 

appeal and when reviewed by legal experts, the 

experts say I will absolutely be released from 

prison.’’ Id. at 3. 2The RFAA includes Registrant’s proposed CAP. 

823(f), I hereby deny the application 

submitted by George Pursley, M.D., 

Control No. W15101573C, seeking 

registration in Georgia as a practitioner, 

and any other pending application 

submitted by George Pursley, M.D. for a 

DEA registration in the State of Georgia. 

This Order is effective January 11, 2021. 

Timothy J. Shea, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27236 Filed 12–10–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Poplar Grove Pharmacy Inc.; 

Decision and Order 

On November 20, 2019, the Assistant 

Administrator, Diversion Control 

Division, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (hereinafter, DEA or 

Government), issued an Order to Show 

Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to Poplar 

Grove Pharmacy Inc. (hereinafter, 

Registrant) of Baltimore, Maryland. 

OSC, at 1. The OSC proposed the 

revocation of Registrant’s Certificate of 

Registration No. FP3109027. Id. It 

alleged that Registrant ‘‘has no state 

authority to handle controlled 

substances.’’ Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(3)). 

Specifically, the OSC alleged that, 

‘‘[o]n April 15, 2019, the Maryland State 

Board of Pharmacy (hereinafter, MBP) 

. . . issued an Order for Summary 

Suspension, suspending . . . 

[Registrant’s] Maryland pharmacy 

permit.’’ OSC, at 2. The OSC alleged 

that ‘‘[c]onsequently, the DEA must 

revoke . . . [Registrant’s] DEA 

registration based on . . . [its] lack of 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in the State of Maryland.’’ Id. 

The OSC notified Registrant of the 

right to request a hearing on the 

allegations or to submit a written 

statement, while waiving the right to a 

hearing, the procedures for electing each 

option, and the consequences for failing 

to elect either option. Id. (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43). The OSC also notified 

Registrant of the opportunity to submit 

a corrective action plan. OSC, at 3 

(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)). 

Adequacy of Service 

In a sworn Declaration, dated May 22, 

2020, a DEA Diversion Investigator 

assigned to the Baltimore District Office 

(hereinafter, DI) stated that he 

accomplished personal service of the 

OSC on Susan Nwoga, Registrant’s 

registration contact, at the Maryland 

Correctional Institution for Women on 

December 10, 2019. Request for Final 

Agency Action (hereinafter, RFAA), EX 

4 (DI Declaration), at 1. The DI stated 

that Ms. Nwoga took the OSC. Id. 

Further evidence of the adequacy of 

the Government’s service is Registrant’s 

proposed Corrective Action Plan 

(hereinafter, CAP) dated December 16, 

2019. RFAA EX 5 (CAP), at 1. 

Accordingly, based on the evidence in 

the RFAA and the Government’s 

representations, I find that the 

Government’s service of the OSC was 

adequate. 

Registrant’s Proposed CAP 

As already discussed, Registrant 

timely submitted a proposed CAP. Id. In 

the CAP, Registrant asked that ‘‘DEA 

begin an internal investigation on it’s 

[sic] failure to provide . . . [Ms. Nwoga] 

with whistle blower protection and why 

when big retail pharmacies are met with 

fines, the DEA set out to entrap . . . 

[her], a black woman who is an 

American of Nigerian descent.’’ Id. at 4. 

Ms. Nwoga ‘‘denied all charges’’ and 

stated that she is ‘‘entitled to all 

privileges of a licensed pharmacist.’’ 1 Id. 

In the CAP, Registrant did not address 

the status of its Maryland pharmacy 

permit, including whether the MBP 

suspended it. 

I find that Registrant waived its right 

to a hearing and proposed a CAP. I find 

that the Assistant Administrator, 

Diversion Control Division, denied ‘‘the 

request to discontinue or defer 

administrative proceedings.’’ RFAA EX 

6 (Letter Denying Proposed CAP), at 1. 

I also find that the Assistant 

Administrator concluded that ‘‘there is 

no potential modification of . . . [the 

proposed CAP] that could or would alter 

. . . [his] decision in this regard.’’ Id. I 

agree with the Assistant Administrator’s 

CAP-related decisions. 

The Government forwarded its RFAA, 

along with the evidentiary record, to my 

office on May 28, 2020. In its RFAA, the 

Government represented that 

‘‘Registrant currently lacks authority to 

handle controlled substances in the 

state of Maryland, the jurisdiction 

where it was licensed as a pharmacy 

and where it is registered with DEA.’’ 

RFAA, at 3. The Government requested 

‘‘a Final Order revoking Registrant’s 

DEA registration.’’ Id. at 4. 

I issue this Decision and Order based 

on the record submitted by the 

Government in its RFAA, which 

constitutes the entire record before me.2

21 CFR 1301.43(e). 

Findings of Fact 

Registrant’s DEA Registration 

Registrant is the holder of DEA 

Certificate of Registration No. 

FP3109027 at the registered address of 

709 Poplar Grove Street, Baltimore, MD 

21216. RFAA, EX 1 (Certification of 

Registration), at 1. Pursuant to this 

registration, Registrant is authorized to 

dispense controlled substances in 

schedules II through V for the business 

activity of retail pharmacy. Id. 

Registrant’s registration ‘‘is in a renewal 

pending status until the resolution of 

administrative proceedings.’’ Id. 

The Status of Registrant’s State License 

and Registration 

The Government submitted a certified 

copy of the ‘‘Order for Summary 

Suspension’’ concerning Registrant’s 

pharmacy permit No. P05639 that the 

MBP issued on April 15, 2019. RFAA, 

EX 3 (hereinafter, Summary Suspension 

Order). According to the Summary 

Suspension Order, Registrant’s 

pharmacist ‘‘pleaded guilty . . . to 

approximately three hundred (300) 

counts that included possession with 

. . . [the] intent to distribute a 

controlled dangerous substance, 

Medicaid fraud, and theft.’’ Id. at 5. The 

Summary Suspension Order stated that, 

‘‘[f]ollowing her conviction, Pharmacist 

A was ordered held in jail until the date 

of her sentencing.’’ Id. It also stated that 

Registrant ‘‘failed to request or submit to 

a closing inspection by the . . . [MBP], 

as required by . . . [MBP] regulations, 

to ensure the proper transfer of 

controlled and non-controlled drug 

inventory and confidential prescription 

records.’’ Id. at 6. 

After concluding that ‘‘the public 

health, safety, or welfare imperatively 

requires emergency action,’’ the MBP 

‘‘summarily suspended’’ the permit 

issued to Registrant to operate as a 

pharmacy in Maryland. Id. The MBP 

thus prohibited Registrant from 

operating as a pharmacy in Maryland 

and ordered the immediate return of all 

pharmacy permits to the MBP. Id. 

The Government also submitted a 

MBP website screen print showing that 

Registrant’s pharmacy permit is 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
80190 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Notices 

3Although there is no date on RFAA EX 7, the 

Government represented in its RFAA that EX 7 

shows Registrant’s pharmacy permit ‘‘continues to 

be suspended.’’ RFAA, at 3. 

4Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an 

agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage 

in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’ 

United States Department of Justice, Attorney 

General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure 

Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 

1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ‘‘[w]hen an 

agency decision rests on official notice of a material 

fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a 

party is entitled, on timely request, to an 

opportunity to show the contrary.’’ Accordingly, 

Applicant may dispute my finding by filing a 

properly supported motion for reconsideration of 

finding of fact within fifteen calendar days of the 

date of this Order. Any such motion shall be filed 

with the Office of the Administrator and a copy 

shall be served on the Government. In the event 

Applicant files a motion, the Government shall 

have fifteen calendar days to file a response. Any 

such motion and response shall be filed and served 

by email on the other party at the email address the 

party submitted for receipt of communications 

related to this administrative proceeding, and on 

the Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement 

Administration at dea.addo.attorneys@

dea.usdoj.gov. 

5 ‘‘Dispense,’’ under Maryland statute, means ‘‘to 

deliver to the ultimate user . . . by or in accordance 

with the lawful order of an authorized provider.’’ 

Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 5–101(l)(1) (West, 

Westlaw current through all legislation from the 

2020 Regular Session of the General Assembly). 

‘‘suspended.’’ 3 RFAA, EX 7 (State of 

Maryland Board of Pharmacy website 

Screen Print), at 1. 

As already discussed, Registrant’s 

proposed CAP did not address the status 

of its Maryland pharmacy permit. As 

such, the Government’s record evidence 

that Registrant’s pharmacy permit was 

summarily suspended is not rebutted. 

According to Maryland’s online 

records, of which I take official notice, 

Registrant’s pharmacy permit is still 

suspended today.4 State of Maryland 

Board of Pharmacy Web Lookup/ 

Verification, https://

mdbop.mylicense.com/Verification (last 

visited date of signature of this Order). 

In sum, there is no record evidence 

rebutting the evidence the Government 

submitted with its RFAA, EX 3 and EX 

7, and the evidence from today’s 

Maryland online records supports the 

Government’s evidence. Accordingly, I 

find that Registrant’s Maryland 

pharmacy permit is currently 

suspended. 

Discussion 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the 

Attorney General is authorized to 

suspend or revoke a registration issued 

under section 823 of the CSA ‘‘upon a 

finding that the registrant . . . has had 

his State license or registration 

suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by 

competent State authority and is no 

longer authorized by State law to engage 

in the . . . dispensing of controlled 

substances.’’ With respect to a 

practitioner, the Agency has long stated 

that the possession of authority to 

dispense controlled substances under 

the laws of the state in which the 

practitioner engages in professional 

practice is a fundamental condition for 

obtaining and maintaining a 

practitioner’s registration. See, e.g., 

James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371 

(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 

826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh 

Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617 

(1978). 

This rule derives from the text of two 

provisions of the CSA. First, Congress 

defined the term ‘‘practitioner’’ to mean 

‘‘a pharmacy . . . or other person 

licensed, registered, or otherwise 

permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in 

which . . . [it] practices . . . , to 

distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer 

. . . a controlled substance in the 

course of professional practice.’’ 21 

U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the 

requirements for obtaining a 

practitioner’s registration, Congress 

directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney General 

shall register practitioners . . . if the 

applicant is authorized to dispense . . . 

controlled substances under the laws of 

the State in which he practices.’’ 21 

U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has 

clearly mandated that a practitioner 

possess state authority in order to be 

deemed a practitioner under the CSA, 

the Agency has repeatedly stated that 

revocation of a practitioner’s registration 

is the appropriate sanction whenever it 

is no longer authorized to dispense 

controlled substances under the laws of 

the state in which she practices. See, 

e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR at 

71,371–72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 

71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick 

A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 

(1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 

11,919, 11,920 (1988); Frederick Marsh 

Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at 27,617. 

According to Maryland statute, ‘‘a 

person shall be registered by the 

[Maryland] Department [of Health] 

before the person manufactures, 

distributes, or dispenses a controlled 

dangerous substance in the State.’’ 5 Md. 

Code Ann., Crim. Law § 5–301(a)(1) 

(West, Westlaw current through all 

legislation from the 2020 Regular 

Session of the General Assembly). Also 

according to Maryland statute, a 

‘‘person shall hold a pharmacy permit 

issued by the (Maryland State) Board (of 

Pharmacy) before the person may 

establish or operate a pharmacy in this 

State.’’ Md. Code Ann., Health. Occ. 

§ 12–401(a) (West, Westlaw current 

through all legislation from the 2020 

Regular Session of the General 

Assembly). Accordingly, holding a 

permit issued by the MBP is a 

prerequisite to operating a pharmacy 

and dispensing a controlled substance 

in Maryland. 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant’s pharmacy 

permit is currently suspended. In 

Maryland, as already discussed, a 

pharmacy must hold a permit from the 

MBP to dispense a controlled substance 

lawfully. Md. Code Ann., Health. Occ. 

§ 12–401(a); Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law 

§ 5–301(a)(1). Registrant currently lacks 

a pharmacy permit in Maryland and, 

thus, it is not eligible to dispense 

controlled substances in Maryland. 21 

U.S.C. 824(a)(3). Accordingly, I will 

order that Registrant’s DEA registration 

be revoked. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 

824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate 

of Registration No. FP3109027 issued to 

Poplar Grove Pharmacy Inc. This Order 

is effective January 11, 2021. 

Timothy J. Shea, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27234 Filed 12–10–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Ernesto C. Torres, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On July 20, 2020, the Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Diversion Control 

Division, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (hereinafter, 

Government or DEA), issued an Order to 

Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to 

Ernesto C. Torres, M.D., (hereinafter, 

Registrant), of Frederick, Maryland. 

Government’s Request for Final Agency 

Action (hereinafter, RFAA) Exhibit 

(hereinafter RFAAX) 4 (OSC), at 1. The 

OSC proposed the revocation of 

Registrant’s Certificate of Registration 

No. AT8751213. Id. It alleged that 

Registrant is without ‘‘authority to 

handle controlled substances in 

Maryland, the state in which [Registrant 

is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 

21 U.S.C. § 824(a)(3)). 

Specifically, the OSC alleged that 

‘‘[o]n January 6, 2020, the [Maryland 

Board of Physicians (hereinafter, MBP)] 

issued [a] Final Decision and Order on 

Order for Summary Suspension, 

whereby the MBP affirmed its May 2019 

suspension ruling. Moreover, during the 

pendency of the above MBP suspension 

proceedings, [Registrant’s] state medical 

license expired on September 30, 2019, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES