```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79314-79315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22202]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Charles Sangmoah, P.A.; Decision and Order

    On January 18, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Charles Sangmoah, 
P.A., of Huntington Park, CA (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. MS2342842, 
alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because 
Registrant is ``currently without authority to handle controlled 
substances in California, the state in which [he is] registered with 
DEA.'' Id. (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 3.\1\ ``A default, unless excused, shall be 
deemed to constitute a waiver of the [registrant's] right to a hearing 
and an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].'' 21 CFR 
1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated 
March 12, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on 
Registrant was adequate. The included declaration from a DEA 
Diversion Investigator indicates that on February 2, 2024, the OSC 
was unsuccessfully mailed to both Registrant's registered address 
and mail-to address. RFAAX 2, at 1-2. On February 9, 2024, the DEA 
Diversion Investigator received an email from the ``Mail Delivery 
Subsystem'' account, confirming successful delivery of the OSC to 
Registrant. Id. at 2; see also id., Attachment 3-4. On February 12, 
2024, the OSC was unsuccessfully mailed to a third address verified 
by the US Postal Inspection Service to be associated with 
Registrant. RFAAX 2, at 2-3. The Agency finds that Registrant was 
successfully served the OSC by email and that the Diversion 
Investigator's efforts to serve Registrant by other means were `` 
`reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise 
[Registrant] of the pendency of the action.' '' Jones v. Flowers, 
547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & 
Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). Therefore, due process notice 
requirements have been satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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] Sec.  1316.67.'' Id. Sec.  1301.43(f)(1). Here, 
the Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant's 
default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(d)-(f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see 
also 21 CFR 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, 
effective May 31, 2023, Registrant surrendered his California physician 
assistant license. RFAAX 1, at 1. According to California online 
records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant's 
California physician assistant license remains surrendered.\2\ 
California DCA License Search, https://search.dca.ca.gov (last visited 
date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that 
Registrant is not licensed to practice as a physician assistant in 
California, the state in which he is registered with DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under 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 Office of the Administrator, Drug 
Enforcement Administration at [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This 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). 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 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 27617.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 79315]]

    According to California statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver a 
controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or 
pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the 
prescribing, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary 
to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Cal. Health & Safety Code 
section 11010 (West 2024). Further, a ``practitioner'' means a person 
``licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, to distribute, 
dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer, a controlled 
substance in the course of professional practice or research in [the] 
state.'' Id. section 11026(c).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
currently lacks authority to practice as a physician assistant in 
California. As discussed above, an individual must be a licensed 
practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in California. Thus, 
because Registrant currently lacks authority to practice as a physician 
assistant in California and, therefore, is not currently authorized to 
handle controlled substances in California, 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. 
MS2342842 issued to Charles Sangmoah, P.A. 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 Charles Sangmoah, P.A., to 
renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending 
application of Charles Sangmoah, P.A., for additional registration in 
California. This Order is effective October 28, 2024.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
September 20, 2024, 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. 2024-22202 Filed 9-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
```