Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74523 

2Under 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, 

Registrant may dispute the Agency’s finding by 

filing a properly supported motion for 

reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen 

calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such 

motion and response shall be filed and served by 

email to the other party and to the DEA Office of 

the Administrator, Drug Enforcement 

Administration at dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov. 

3This rule derives from the text of two provisions 

of the Controlled Substances Act. First, Congress 

defined the term ‘‘practitioner’’ to mean ‘‘a 

physician . . . or other person 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.’’ 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(g)(1). Because Congress has clearly mandated 

that a practitioner possess state authority in order 

to be deemed a practitioner under the CSA, DEA 

has held repeatedly that revocation of a 

practitioner’s registration is the appropriate 

sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to 

dispense controlled substances under the laws of 

the state in which he practices. See, e.g., James L. 

Hooper, 76 FR at 71371–72; Sheran Arden Yeates, 

D.O., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 

D.O., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, D.O., 

53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick Marsh 

Blanton, 43 FR at 27617. 

4Although there are limited circumstances under 

which a person ‘‘may lawfully possess controlled 

dangerous substances’’ without a registration issued 

by the Director of the Oklahoma State Bureau of 

Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control, based on 

the information furnished by the Government, none 

are applicable here. Id. Section 2–302(H). 

default . . . DEA may then file a request 

for final agency action with the 

Administrator, along with a record to 

support its request. In such 

circumstances, the Administrator may 

enter a default final order pursuant to 

[21 CFR] § 1316.67.’’ Id. § 1301.43(f)(1). 

Here, the Government has requested 

final agency action based on Registrant’s 

default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c) 

and (f). RFAA, at 1. 

Findings of Fact 

The Agency finds that, in light of 

Registrant’s default, the factual 

allegations in the OSC are admitted. 

According to the OSC, on April 8, 2022, 

Registrant ‘‘entered into an Agreement 

with the State of Oklahoma Board of 

Medical Licensure and Supervision ‘not 

to practice in any manner as a Medical 

Doctor in the State of Oklahoma,’ ’’ and 

‘‘[o]n October 31, 2022, [Registrant’s] 

State of Oklahoma controlled substance 

registration expired.’’ RFAAX 2, at 2. 

According to Oklahoma’s online 

records, of which the Agency takes 

official notice, Registrant is not 

‘‘Registered to Dispense,’’ and 

Registrant’s Oklahoma controlled 

substance license remains inactive.2

Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure 

and Supervision, Search Licenses, 

https://www.okmedicalboard.org/search 

(last visited date of signature of this 

Order); Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics 

and Dangerous Drugs Control, Registrant 

Search, https://obnddc.us.

thentiacloud.net/webs/obnddc/register/ 

# (last visited date of signature of this 

Order). Therefore, the Agency finds that 

Registrant is not authorized to dispense 

or handle controlled substances in 

Oklahoma, the state in which he is 

registered with DEA. 

Discussion 

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

Attorney General is authorized to 

suspend or revoke a registration issued 

under 21 U.S.C. 823 ‘‘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, DEA has 

also long held that the possession of 

authority to dispense controlled 

substances under the laws of the state in 

which a practitioner engages in 

professional practice is a fundamental 

condition for obtaining and maintaining 

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

James L. Hooper, D.O., 76 FR 71371, 

71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 

F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick 

Marsh Blanton, D.O., 43 FR 27616, 

27617 (1978).3

Pursuant to the Oklahoma’s Uniform 

Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, 

‘‘[e]very person who manufactures, 

distributes, dispenses, prescribes, 

administers or uses for scientific 

purposes any controlled dangerous 

substance within or into this state . . . 

shall obtain a registration issued by the 

Director of the Oklahoma State Bureau 

of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs 

Control, in accordance with rules 

promulgated by the Director.’’ Okla. 

Stat. tit. 63, section 2–302(A).4

Here, the evidence in the record is 

that Registrant currently lacks authority 

to handle controlled substances in 

Oklahoma because his Oklahoma 

controlled substance license has 

expired. As already discussed, a person 

must hold a valid controlled substance 

license to dispense a controlled 

substance in Oklahoma, subject to 

limited exceptions. Thus, because 

Registrant lacks authority to handle 

controlled substances in Oklahoma, 

Registrant is not eligible to maintain a 

DEA registration. Accordingly, the 

Agency 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. BM0663523 issued 

to Demille W. Madoux, M.D. Further, 

pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

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

823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending 

applications of Demille W. Madoux, 

M.D., to renew or modify this 

registration, as well as any other 

pending application of Demille W. 

Madoux, M.D., for additional 

registration in Oklahoma. This Order is 

effective November 30, 2023. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on October 20, 2023, by Administrator 

Anne Milgram. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DEA. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DEA Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

DEA. This administrative process in no 

way alters the legal effect of this 

document upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Heather Achbach, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug 

Enforcement Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23953 Filed 10–30–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Fares F. Yasin, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On June 30, 2021, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration 

(hereinafter, DEA or Government) 

issued an Order to Show Cause 

(hereinafter, OSC) to Fares F. Yasin, 

M.D. (hereinafter, Applicant). Request 

for Final Agency Action (hereinafter, 

RFAA), Exhibit (hereinafter, RFAAX) 2, 

at 1, 4; RFAAX 4, at 1. The OSC 

proposed the denial of Applicant’s 

application for a DEA Certificate of 

Registration, Control No. W19137777C, 

with the proposed registered address of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
74524 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 

1Effective December 2, 2022, the Medical 

Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion 

Act, Public Law 117–215, 136 Stat. 2257 (2022) 

(Marijuana Research Amendments or MRA), 

amended the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and 

other statutes. Relevant to this matter, the MRA 

redesignated 21 U.S.C. 823(f), cited in the OSC, as 

21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). This Decision cites to the 

current designation, 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), and to the 

MRA-amended CSA throughout. 

2Based on the Declaration of a DEA Special 

Agent, the Agency finds that the Government’s 

service of the OSC on Applicant was adequate and 

that Applicant was served with the OSC on July 8, 

2021. RFAAX 4, at 1; see also RFAAX 4, Appendix 

A. According to Applicant, he responded to the 

OSC by email on August 8, 2021, and 

communicated several times thereafter with DEA 

regarding his desire to withdraw his application 

prior to submitting the August 31, 2021 letter. 

RFAAX 3. 

3 In its RFAA, the Government appears to have 

dropped the allegations regarding material 

falsification and public interest. RFAA, at 2–3. 

4Even so, in such cases, a registrant must be 

provided with a meaningful opportunity to contest 

the allegation. See, e.g., Lawrence E. Stewart, M.D., 

86 FR 15257, 15257 (2021); Cypress Creek 

Pharmacy LLC, 86 FR 71927, 71927 (2021); Lesly 

Pompy, M.D., 84 FR 57749, 57749–50 (2019); Ataya, 

81 FR at 8245; Morgan, 78 FR at 61973–74. On July 

27, 2023, the Government submitted a Notice of 

Notification of RFAA in which the Government 

asserted that it had notified Applicant of the lack 

of authority allegation and had provided Applicant 

with a copy of the RFAA via email. Notice of 

Notification of RFAA, at 1; see also Notice of 

Notification of RFAA, Exhibit 1. The Government’s 

evidence included an email to Applicant with 

instructions for submitting a response, if desired, to 

the lack of authority allegation. Id. Accordingly, the 

Agency finds that Applicant was notified of the 

RFAA and was provided with a meaningful 

opportunity to contest the lack of authority 

allegation. Further, more than two months have 

passed since the Government notified Applicant 

and Applicant has not availed himself of the 

opportunity to respond. 

5The Agency has no indication that the status of 

Applicant’s controlled substance license (which is 

not publicly available information) has changed. 

Following the submission of the Government’s 

RFAA and its notification to Applicant that it had 

submitted the RFAA, the Agency to date has not 

received any correspondence from Applicant 

regarding any changes to the status of his controlled 

substance license. Accordingly, the Agency finds 

that Applicant’s Puerto Rico controlled substance 

license remains suspended as of the date of 

signature of this Order. See Heather M. Entrekin, 

DVM, 88 FR 17266, 17266 (2023). Applicant may 

dispute the Agency’s finding by filing a motion for 

reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen 

calendar days of the date of this Order with 

supporting documentation (showing that Applicant 

was able to dispense controlled substances on or 

before the date of this Order). Any such motion and 

response shall be filed and served by email to the 

other party and to the DEA Office of the 

Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, 

at dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov. 

6This rule derives from the text of two provisions 

of the CSA. First, Congress defined the term 

‘‘practitioner’’ to mean ‘‘a physician . . . or other 

person 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.’’ 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(g)(1) (this section, 

formerly section 823(f), was redesignated as part of 

the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research 

Expansion Act, Public Law 117–215, 136 Stat. 2257 

(2022)). Because Congress has clearly mandated that 

a practitioner possess state authority in order to be 

deemed a practitioner under the CSA, DEA has held 

repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner’s 

registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he 

is no longer authorized to dispense controlled 

substances under the laws of the state in which he 

practices. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR at 

71371–72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 

39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 

FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 

11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 

FR at 27,617. 

11 Calle Central, Coto Laurel, Puerto 

Rico 00780. RFAAX 2, at 1. The OSC 

alleged that Applicant’s application 

should be denied because Applicant 

materially falsified his application and 

because Applicant’s registration would 

be inconsistent with the public interest. 

Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1), 

823(g)(1) 1). 

By letter dated August 31, 2021, 

Applicant requested that DEA 

‘‘[f]ormally withdraw [his] DEA 

registration application and cancel the 

hearing.’’ RFAAX 3.2 On May 25, 2023, 

the Government submitted its RFAA, 

alleging that Applicant’s Puerto Rico 

controlled substance license had been 

suspended and proposing the denial of 

Applicant’s application on the grounds 

that Applicant lacks authority to handle 

controlled substances in Puerto Rico, 

the territory in which he seeks 

registration with DEA. RFAA, at 1, 3.3

The Government had not alleged that 

Applicant lacked authority in the OSC. 

See RFAAX 2. Nonetheless, the 

Government is not required to issue an 

amended OSC to notice an allegation of 

a registrant’s lack of state (or in this case 

territory) authority that arises during the 

pendency of a proceeding regarding a 

DEA registration. Hatem M. Ataya, M.D., 

81 FR 8221, 8244 (2016). Previous 

Agency decisions have stated that 

because the possession of state authority 

is a prerequisite for obtaining and 

maintaining a registration, the issue of 

state authority can be raised at any stage 

of a proceeding. See Ataya, 81 FR at 

8244; Joe M. Morgan, D.O., 78 FR 61961, 

61973–74 (2013).4

The Agency makes the following 

findings of fact based on the 

uncontroverted evidence submitted by 

the Government in its RFAA. 

Findings of Fact 

On August 10, 2022, the Puerto Rico 

Department of Health suspended 

Applicant’s Puerto Rico controlled 

substance license. RFAAX 5, Appendix 

A, at 1. As of August 15, 2022, 

Applicant’s Puerto Rico controlled 

substance license remained suspended. 

Id.5 Accordingly, the Agency finds that 

Applicant is not licensed to handle 

controlled substances in Puerto Rico, 

the territory in which he seeks 

registration with DEA. 

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, DEA has also long held that 

the possession of authority to dispense 

controlled substances under the laws of 

the state in which a 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 27616, 27617 (1978).6

According to the Puerto Rico 

Controlled Substances Act, ‘‘[a]ny 

person who manufactures, distributes 

and dispenses controlled substances in 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico . . . 

shall obtain a registration certification 

annually, issued by the Secretary of 

Health, pursuant to the rules and 

regulations approved and promulgated 

by said government official.’’ P.R. Laws 

Ann. tit. 24, section 2302(a) (West, 

current through all acts translated by the 

Translation Office of the Puerto Rico 

Government through the 2011 

Legislative Session and various acts 

from 2012 to the present). Further, 

‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘the prescribing, 

administering or delivering of a 

controlled substance to an ultimate user, 

by prescription or order for 

administering it. It includes the process 

of the compounding, labeling and 

packaging of a controlled substance for 

such delivery. The term ‘dispenser’ 

means the practitioner who so delivers 

a controlled substance.’’ Id. at section 

2102(11). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Applicant lacks authority 

to dispense controlled substances in 

Puerto Rico. As discussed above, a 

physician must hold a controlled 

substances license to dispense a 

controlled substance in Puerto Rico. 

Thus, because Applicant lacks authority 

to handle controlled substances in 

Puerto Rico, Applicant is not eligible to 

receive a DEA registration. Accordingly, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2023 / Notices 74525 

1Based on the Government’s submissions in its 

RFAA dated August 2, 2023, the Agency finds that 

service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. 

Specifically, the included Declaration of a DEA 

Diversion Investigator asserts that on March 30, 

2023, Registrant was served with the OSC at his 

registered address via certified mail. RFAAX 2, at 

1. 

2Under 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, 

Registrant may dispute the Agency’s finding by 

filing a properly supported motion for 

reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen 

calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such 

motion and response shall be filed and served by 

email to the other party and to DEA Office of the 

Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at 

dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov. 

3This rule derives from the text of two provisions 

of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). First, 

Congress defined the term ‘‘practitioner’’ to mean 

‘‘a physician . . . or other person 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.’’ 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(g)(1) (this section, 

formerly section 823(f), was redesignated as part of 

the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research 

Expansion Act, Public Law 117–215, 136 Stat. 2257 

(2022)). Because Congress has clearly mandated that 

a practitioner possess state authority in order to be 

deemed a practitioner under the CSA, DEA has held 

repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner’s 

registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he 

is no longer authorized to dispense controlled 

substances under the laws of the state in which he 

practices. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR at 

71371–72; Sheran Arden Yeates, D.O., 71 FR 39130, 

39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, D.O., 58 FR 51104, 

51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, D.O., 53 FR 11919, 

11920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR at 

27617. 

the Agency will order that Applicant’s 

application for a DEA registration be 

denied. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

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

823(g)(1), I hereby deny the pending 

application for a Certificate of 

Registration, Control Number 

W19137777C, submitted by Fares F. 

Yasin, M.D., as well as any other 

pending application of Fares F. Yasin, 

M.D., for additional registration in 

Puerto Rico. This Order is effective 

November 30, 2023. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on October 20, 2023, by Administrator 

Anne Milgram. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DEA. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DEA Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

DEA. This administrative process in no 

way alters the legal effect of this 

document upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Heather Achbach, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug 

Enforcement Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23957 Filed 10–30–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Stephen E. Van Noy, P.A.; Decision 

and Order 

On March 24, 2023, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Stephen E. Van Noy, 

P.A. (Registrant). Request for Final 

Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit 

(RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed 

the revocation of Registrant’s Certificate 

of Registration No. MV2612681 at the 

registered address of 2101 Box Butte 

Avenue, Alliance, Nebraska 69301. Id. 

at 1. The OSC alleged that Registrant’s 

registration should be revoked because 

Registrant is ‘‘currently without 

authority to prescribe, administer, 

dispense, or otherwise handle 

controlled substances in the state of 

Nebraska, the state in which [he is] 

registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 1–2 (citing 

21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). 

The OSC notified Registrant of his 

right to file with DEA a written request 

for hearing, and that if he failed to file 

such a request, he would be deemed to 

have waived his right to a hearing and 

be in default. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43). Here, Registrant did not 

request a hearing. RFAA, at 1, 2.1 ‘‘A 

default, unless excused, shall be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

registrant’s/applicant’s right to a hearing 

and an admission of the factual 

allegations of the [OSC].’’ 21 CFR 

1301.43(e). 

Further, ‘‘[i]n the event that a 

registrant . . . is deemed to be in 

default . . . DEA may then file a request 

for final agency action with the 

Administrator, along with a record to 

support its request. In such 

circumstances, the Administrator may 

enter a default final order pursuant to 

[21 CFR] § 1316.67.’’ Id. § 1301.43(f)(1). 

Here, the Government has requested 

final agency action based on Registrant’s 

default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), 

(f). See also id. § 1316.67. 

Findings of Fact 

The Agency finds that, in light of 

Registrant’s default, the factual 

allegations in the OSC are admitted. 

According to the OSC, on October 1, 

2022, the Nebraska Department of 

Health and Human Services revoked 

Registrant’s Nebraska physician 

assistant license. RFAAX 1, at 1. 

According to Nebraska’s online 

records, of which the Agency takes 

official notice, Registrant’s Nebraska 

physician assistant license remains 

revoked.2 Nebraska Department of 

Health and Human Services License 

Information System Search, https://

www.nebraska.gov/LISSearch/search.cgi 

(last visited date of signature of this 

Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds 

that Registrant is not licensed to 

practice as a physician assistant in 

Nebraska, the state in which he is 

registered with DEA. 

Discussion 

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

Attorney General is authorized to 

suspend or revoke a registration issued 

under 21 U.S.C. 823 ‘‘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, DEA has 

also long held that the possession of 

authority to dispense controlled 

substances under the laws of the state in 

which a practitioner engages in 

professional practice is a fundamental 

condition for obtaining and maintaining 

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

James L. Hooper, D.O., 76 FR 71371 

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

826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh 

Blanton, D.O., 43 FR 27616, 27617 

(1978).3

According to Nebraska statute, 

‘‘[d]ispense means to deliver a 

controlled substance to an ultimate user 

or a research subject pursuant to a 

medical order issued by a practitioner 

authorized to prescribe, including the 

packaging, labeling, or compounding 

necessary to prepare the controlled 

substance for such delivery.’’ Neb. Rev. 

Stat. section 28–401(8) (2023). Further, 

a ‘‘[p]ractitioner means a physician, a 

physician assistant . . . or any other 

person licensed, registered, or otherwise 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1