[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 37 (Thursday, February 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8749-8750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3766]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Dwayne LaFrantz Wilson, M.D.; Revocation of Registration

    On October 22, 2008, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to 
Show Cause to Dwayne LaFrantz Wilson, M.D. (Respondent), of Providence, 
Rhode Island. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of 
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, BW6030857, which 
authorizes him to dispense controlled substances as a practitioner, and 
the denial of any pending applications to renew or modify his 
registration, on the ground that his Rhode Island medical license had 
been suspended, and that he therefore lacks authority to handle 
controlled substances under the laws of Rhode Island, the State in 
which he is registered. Show Cause Order at 1.
    On October 23, 2008, the Government initially attempted to serve 
the Show Cause Order on Respondent by certified mail, return receipt 
requested, addressed to him at his registered address. However, the 
mailing was returned by the Post Office, with a sticker attached which 
stated: ``NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED, UNABLE TO FORWARD.''
    Thereafter, a DEA Investigator (DI) contacted the Rhode Island 
Board of Medicine in an attempt to obtain Respondent's address. 
Declaration of Thomas Cook at 1. A board official indicated that he did 
not know Respondent's current address, but had heard that he had moved 
to somewhere in the Southwestern United States. Id. The DI also 
unsuccessfully searched for Respondent through various online databases 
but could not find any information regarding the latter's whereabouts. 
Id. The DI also tried to contact him through the e-mail address he had 
previously provided to DEA; Respondent did not, however, reply to the 
e-mail. Id. Finally, the DI contacted the owner of the apartment which 
Respondent had rented and used as his registered location. Id. at 2. 
Respondent's ex-landlord advised that Respondent had moved in April 
2008 and did not leave a forwarding address. Id. Accordingly, the 
Government has been unable to provide actual notice of this proceeding 
to Respondent.
    In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315 
(1950), the Supreme Court held that ``when notice is a person's due * * 
* [t]he means employed must be such as one desirous of actually 
informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it.'' More 
recently, in a case in which a State attempted to serve a property 
owner with notice of a tax sale by certified mail which was returned as 
unclaimed, the Court explained that ``when a letter is returned by the 
post office, the sender will ordinarily attempt to resend it, if it is 
practicable to do so.'' Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 230 (2006) 
(citing Small v. United States, 136 F.3d 1334, 1337 (DC Cir. 1998)).
    In Jones, the Court reaffirmed, however, that ``[d]ue process does 
not require that a property owner receive actual notice before the 
government may take his property.'' 547 U.S. at 226 (citing Dusenbery 
v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 170 (2002)). Moreover, due process does 
not require ``heroic efforts,'' Dusenbery, 534 U.S. at 170, but rather, 
only that ``the government * * * provide `notice reasonably calculated, 
under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the 
pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their 
objections.' '' 547 U.S. at 226 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314).
    Applying these standards, I hold that the Government has satisfied 
the requirements of due process, notwithstanding that it has been 
unable to serve Respondent. In contrast to Jones, the Government was 
not required to resend the Show Cause Order by regular mail because the 
original certified mailing was not returned as unclaimed, but rather as 
undeliverable (apparently because Respondent did not leave a forwarding 
address with the Post Office). As the Court reasoned in Jones, ``if 
there were no reasonable additional steps the government could have 
taken upon return of the unclaimed notice letter, it cannot be faulted 
for doing nothing.'' 547 U.S. at 234. Moreover, the Government made 
substantial efforts to locate Respondent. Even though its efforts were 
unsuccessful, they were ``reasonably calculated, under all the 
circumstances, to apprise [Respondent] of the pendency of the action,'' 
and thus satisfy due process. Dusenbery, 534 U.S. at 173 (quoting 
Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314).
    I further hold that this matter may proceed in absentia. I 
therefore enter this Decision and Final Order without a hearing based 
on the evidence contained in the record submitted by the Government. I 
make the following findings.

Findings

    Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate or Registration, 
BW6030857, which authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in 
schedules II through V as a practitioner. Respondent's registered 
location is 388 South Main St., <greek-i>56, Providence, Rhode Island; 
his registration does not expire until May 31, 2010.

[[Page 8750]]

    Respondent also holds both an allopathic physician's license and a 
controlled substance registration as an allopathic physician which have 
been issued by the Rhode Island Board of Medical Licensure and 
Discipline. On January 24, 2008, Respondent entered into a consent 
order with the Rhode Island Board; the order suspended Respondent's 
Rhode Island licenses based on the July 30, 2007 order of the New York 
Department of Health, State Board of Professional Medical Conduct, 
which had revoked his New York medical license on fourteen different 
grounds. The Rhode Island Board's order became effective on February 
13, 2008. According to the online records of the Rhode Island Board, 
the suspension remains in effect as of the date of this Decision and 
Final Order. The Rhode Island Board's online records further indicate 
that Respondent's state controlled substances registration is inactive, 
because a prerequisite (i.e., his state medical license) is inactive. I 
therefore find that Respondent is not currently authorized under Rhode 
Island law to dispense controlled substances.

Discussion

    Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a practitioner must be 
currently authorized to handle controlled substances in ``the 
jurisdiction in which he practices'' in order to maintain a DEA 
registration. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (``[t]he term `practitioner' means 
a physician * * * licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by * * 
* the jurisdiction in which he practices * * * to distribute, dispense, 
[or] administer * * * a controlled substance in the course of 
professional practice''). See also id. Sec.  823(f) (``The Attorney 
General shall register practitioners * * * if the applicant is 
authorized to dispense * * * controlled substances under the laws of 
the State in which he practices.''). As these provisions make plain, 
possessing authority under state law to handle controlled substances is 
an essential condition for holding a DEA registration.
    Accordingly, DEA has held repeatedly that the CSA requires the 
revocation of a registration issued to a practitioner whose state 
license has been suspended or revoked. Scott Sandarg, 74 FR 17528, 
17529 (2009); Sheran Arden Yeates, 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick 
A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 
(1988). See also 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) (authorizing the revocation of a 
registration ``upon a finding that the registrant * * * has had his 
State license or registration suspended [or] revoked * * * and is no 
longer authorized by State law to engage in the * * * distribution [or] 
dispensing of controlled substances'').
    As found above, Respondent currently lacks authority to dispense 
controlled substances in Rhode Island, the State in which he holds his 
DEA registration. Because Respondent no longer meets the CSA's 
fundamental requirement for holding a registration, see 21 U.S.C. 
823(f), his registration will be revoked.

Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & 
824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that DEA 
Certificate of Registration, BW6030857, issued to Dwayne LaFrantz 
Wilson, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any 
pending application of Dwayne LaFrantz Wilson, M.D., to renew or modify 
his registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective 
March 29, 2010.

    Dated: February 13, 2010.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-3766 Filed 2-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P