Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Notices 8039 

1 In the Prehearing Statement, the Government 

clarified the relevant time period to be between 

early 2017 and ‘‘late 2019.’’ ALJX 4, at 15. 

2 I find that the Government’s service of the OSC 

was adequate. 

observation but not participation. An 

agenda and supporting materials will be 

posted at least 7 days in advance of the 

meeting at: https://www.uscourts.gov/ 

rules-policies/records-rules-committees/ 

agenda-books. 

DATES: April 28, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bridget Healy, Esq., Acting Chief 

Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 

Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary 

Building, One Columbus Circle NE, 

Suite 7–300, Washington, DC 20544, 

Phone (202) 502–1820, 

RulesCommittee_Secretary@

ao.uscourts.gov. 

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.) 

Dated: February 8, 2022. 

Shelly L. Cox, 

Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02960 Filed 2–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 2210–55–P 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Advisory Committee on Evidence 

Rules; Meeting of the Judicial 

Conference 

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the 

United States. 

ACTION: Advisory Committee on 

Evidence Rules; notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on 

Evidence Rules will hold a meeting on 

May 6, 2022 in Washington, DC. The 

meeting is open to the public for 

observation but not participation. An 

agenda and supporting materials will be 

posted at least 7 days in advance of the 

meeting at: https://www.uscourts.gov/ 

rules-policies/records-rules-committees/ 

agenda-books. 

DATES: May 6, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bridget Healy, Esq., Acting Chief 

Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 

Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary 

Building, One Columbus Circle NE, 

Suite 7–300, Washington, DC 20544, 

Phone (202) 502–1820, 

RulesCommittee_Secretary@

ao.uscourts.gov. 

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.) 

Dated: February 8, 2022. 

Shelly L. Cox, 

Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02963 Filed 2–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 2210–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 20–03] 

John X. Qian, M.D.; Decision and Order 

On November 18, 2019, a former 

Acting Administrator, Drug 

Enforcement Administration 

(hereinafter, DEA or Government), 

issued an Order to Show Cause and 

Immediate Suspension of Registration 

(hereinafter, OSC/ISO) to John X. Qian, 

M.D. (hereinafter, Respondent). 

Administrative Law Judge Exhibit 

(hereinafter, ALJX) 1 (Order to Show 

Cause), at 1. The OSC proposed the 

revocation of Respondent’s Certificates 

of Registration Nos. FQ7186174, 

FQ7906968, and BQ7364970, and denial 

of the pending application for a new 

DEA Certificate of Registration 

(hereinafter, COR or registration), 

Application No. W18124091C, pursuant 

to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) ‘‘because [his] 

continued registration is inconsistent 

with the public interest. . . .’’ Id. 

(citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f)). 

I. Procedural History 

The OSC alleged that ‘‘from at least 

early 2017, through at least April 29, 

2019,1 [Respondent] unlawfully issued 

or approved the issuance of 

prescriptions for controlled substances’’ 

to three patients ‘‘that were not for a 

legitimate medical purpose, were 

beneath the standard of care for the 

practice of medicine in the State of 

California, and were not issued in the 

usual course of professional medical 

practice.’’ Id. at 5. The OSC alleged 

violations of 21 U.S.C. 841(a) and 

842(a); 21 CFR 1306.04(a); Cal. Health & 

Safety §§ 11153(a), 11154(a); and Cal. 

Bus. § Prof. §§ 725(a), 22334, and 

2242(a). Id. 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d) and 21 

CFR 1301.36(e), the former Acting 

Administrator immediately suspended 

Respondent’s Certificate of Registration, 

found ‘‘that [Respondent’s] continued 

registration [was] inconsistent with the 

public interest’’ and that ‘‘continued 

registration while [the] proceedings are 

pending constitutes an imminent danger 

to the public health or safety.’’ Id. at 13. 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(f) and 21 CFR 

1301.36(f), the former Acting 

Administrator authorized DEA Special 

Agents (hereinafter, SA) and Diversion 

Investigators (hereinafter, DI) serving 

the OSC on Respondent to place under 

seal or to remove for safekeeping all 

controlled substances that Respondent 

possessed pursuant to the suspended 

registrations and to take the registrations 

themselves. Id. 

The OSC notified Respondent of the 

right to either request a hearing on the 

allegations or submit a written 

statement in lieu of exercising the right 

to a hearing, the procedures for electing 

each option, and the consequences for 

failing to elect either option. Id. at 13 

(citing 21 CFR 1301.43). 

By letter dated November 21, 2019, 

Respondent timely requested a hearing.2

ALJX 2 (Request for Hearing), at 1. The 

matter was placed on the docket of the 

Office of Administrative Law Judges and 

was assigned to Mark M. Dowd 

(hereinafter, ALJ). In addition to the 

traditional procedural history, the 

parties filed robust Joint Stipulations of 

Facts, ALJX 10 (Joint Stipulations of 

Facts), and the Government filed several 

Motions in Limine, which I will briefly 

summarize here. The first, a Motion in 

Limine to Exclude Second Expert 

Witness, ALJX 11, sought to exclude the 

testimony of a second expert witness 

identified a week before the hearing in 

this matter was scheduled to begin. Id. 

at 1. The ALJ found good cause for the 

Respondent’s delay and agreed to 

permit both of Respondent’s experts to 

testify so long as the testimony was not 

cumulative or repetitive. ALJX 12 

(Order Granting in Part Government’s 

Motion in Limine and to Exclude 

Evidence). Respondent ended up calling 

only the later-added expert witness to 

testify. The second was a Motion in 

Limine to Exclude Character Witnesses, 

ALJX 13, which alleged that the dozen 

character witnesses that Respondent 

proposed could only offer testimony 

that was either irrelevant or duplicative. 

ALJX 13. The ALJ did not grant the 

Government’s motion, but he did limit 

the number of witnesses who could 

discuss Respondent’s character and 

dispensing experience to three patients 

and four medical professionals and 

limited the scope of the testimony to 

what was relevant to the hearing. 

Transcript of Proceedings in the Matter 

of John X. Qian, M.D. (hereinafter, Tr.), 

7–10. In the end, Respondent did not 

call any witnesses for these purposes 

but instead presented documentary 

evidence. During the hearing, the 

Government filed a Motion in Limine to 

Strike Testimony and Evidence, ALJX 

18, related to Respondent’s treatment of 

E.N. that predated the medical records 

provided to the Government in response 

to a subpoena (which began in July 

2012). ALJX 18, at 1. The ALJ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1