Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10073 

1 I further ordered that the controlled substances 

in Respondent’s possession be either placed under 

seal or removed for safekeeping. The Order further 

informed Respondent of its right to request a 

hearing on the allegations; gave the date, time and 

place of the hearing; explained the procedure for 

requesting a hearing or to submit a written 

statement of position in lieu of a hearing; and 

explained the consequences if Respondent failed to 

request a hearing. Show Cause Order at 2–3. 

2The Web site operator also reimbursed 

Respondent for the cost of the drugs. 

WISCONSIN 

Columbia County 

Robertson, John A. and Martha, House, 456 

Seminary St., Lodi, 08001370, Listed, 

1/22/09. 

[FR Doc. E9–4831 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Meetinghouse Community Pharmacy, 

Inc.; Affirmance of Suspension Order 

On October 31, 2008, I, the Deputy 

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause and Immediate Suspension 

of Registration to Meetinghouse 

Community Pharmacy, Inc. 

(Respondent), of Dorchester, 

Massachusetts. The Order proposed the 

revocation of Respondent’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration, BM3972747, 

which authorized it to dispense 

controlled substances in schedules II 

through IV as a retail pharmacy, and the 

denial of any pending application to 

renew or modify the registration on the 

ground that its ‘‘continued registration 

is inconsistent with the public interest.’’ 

Show Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 

823(f) & 824(a)(4)). 

The Show Cause Order alleged that 

Respondent was distributing ‘‘a large 

volume of controlled substances 

pursuant to * * * prescriptions that it 

knows, or should know, [were] issued 

by practitioners not acting in the usual 

course of professional practice or that 

[were] issued for other than a legitimate 

medical purpose in violation of 21 CFR 

1306.04(a).’’ Id. The Order specifically 

alleged that Respondent was filling 

controlled-substance prescriptions 

issued by physicians who were not 

licensed in the States where 

Respondent’s customers were located 

and thus lacked authority to prescribe to 

them and violated both State and 

Federal law. Id. at 1–2. (citing United 

Prescription Servs., Inc., 72 FR 50397 

(2007)). 

Based on the above, I further 

concluded that Respondent’s continued 

registration during the pendency of this 

proceeding would ‘‘constitute an 

imminent danger to the public health 

and safety.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 

824(d)). I therefore ordered the 

immediate suspension of Respondent’s 

registration.1 Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 

824(d)). 

On November 1, 2008, the Order was 

served on Respondent. Since then, 

neither Respondent’s owner, nor anyone 

else purporting to represent it, has 

requested a hearing on its behalf. 

Because more than thirty days have 

passed since service of the Order, and 

the Agency has not received a request 

for a hearing, I conclude that 

Respondent has waived its right to a 

hearing. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). I therefore 

enter this Decision and Final Order 

based on relevant material contained in 

the investigative file and make the 

following findings. 

Findings 

In 1994, Respondent was first 

registered with the Agency. Respondent 

held DEA Certificate of Registration, 

BM3972747, which authorized it to 

dispense controlled substances in 

schedules II through IV as a retail 

pharmacy at the registered location of 

248 Bowdoin St., Dorchester, 

Massachusetts. Respondent’s 

registration expired, however, on 

January 31, 2009, and it has not filed a 

renewal application. 

Respondent is owned and managed by 

Baldwin Ihenacho. Mr. Ihenacho held a 

Massachusetts pharmacist license, 

which was suspended on November 1, 

2008, and which expired on December 

31, 2008. Respondent holds both a 

Massachusetts Retail Drug Store Permit 

and a Massachusetts Controlled 

Substances License, both of which do 

not expire until December 31, 2009. 

These licenses were, however, 

suspended on November 1 and 6, 2008, 

respectively. 

On November 1, 2008, law 

enforcement authorities executed a 

search warrant and served the 

Immediate Suspension Order on 

Respondent. During the search, the 

authorities also arrested Mr. Ihenacho. 

Mr. Ihenacho was taken to a unit of the 

Boston Police Department. After being 

given the Miranda warnings, Mr. 

Ihenacho agreed to an interview. 

During the interview, Mr. Ihenacho 

stated that several years earlier he had 

received a fax from Jack, an individual 

in the Dominican Republic who 

solicited him to fill prescriptions which 

were being issued through Web sites. 

Ihenacho called Jack and entered into an 

oral agreement with him under which 

he was paid a dispensing fee of $5.75 for 

each prescription Respondent filled.2

Mr. Ihenacho stated that at one point he 

was receiving approximately 100 

prescriptions a day from Jack and had 

to tell him that he could not fill that 

many scripts because it was interfering 

with his local business. According to 

Mr. Ihenacho, he received 

approximately $100,000 for filling the 

prescriptions from Jack and was owed 

an additional $145,000. 

According to Mr. Ihenacho, the 

customers would either go to a Web site 

or call the company to order a drug and 

provide their medical history. The 

company would then provide the 

customer’s purported medical history to 

a physician, who would decide whether 

to issue a prescription. The approved 

prescriptions would then be entered 

into a zip file and sent electronically to 

his pharmacy. Most of the controlledsubstance prescriptions were for 

phentermine and alprazolam, which are 

schedule IV controlled substances. See 

21 CFR 1308.14. 

Mr. Ihenacho stated that he did not 

fill Internet prescriptions for customers 

who lived in Massachusetts. Mr. 

Ihenacho asserted that there were some 

States he did not ship to, and that an 

employee with the Massachusetts Board 

of Pharmacy had told him that some 

States prohibited the shipments. 

When asked if he was concerned 

about the prescriptions being issued by 

doctors to patients who lived in 

different States, Mr. Ihenacho answered 

that he was concerned, but maintained 

that he had asked the doctors about the 

prescriptions and they were convincing. 

According to Mr. Ihenacho, when he 

would call a doctor, the doctor would 

tell him that he had been talking to the 

patient for years so he filled the 

prescriptions. 

Mr. Ihenacho further stated that he 

had visited Jack at his office in the 

Dominican Republic, and had been 

introduced to Jack’s cousin. The cousin 

told Mr. Ihenacho that he wanted to 

start his own Internet pharmacy 

business; Mr. Ihenacho started filling 

prescriptions for the cousin as well. 

According to Mr. Ihenacho, the cousin 

had paid him approximately $100,000 

for a one-year period and owed him 

another $40,000. Mr. Ihenacho also told 

investigators that he had filled 

prescriptions for the owners of several 

other Internet schemes, two of whom 

paid him a fee of $10,000 a week. 

Moreover, at the time of his arrest, Mr. 

Ihenacho stated that he was currently 

filling approximately 150 Internet 

prescriptions per day; he also claimed 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10074 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

3On March 31, 2008, Dr. Aghaegbuna entered 

into a consent order with the Virginia Board of 

Medicine under which the Board found that he had 

prescribed without establishing valid-doctor 

relationships and Dr. Aghaegbuna surrendered his 

State license. 

4Section 304(d) further provides that ‘‘[t]he 

Attorney General may, in his discretion, suspend 

any registration simultaneously with the institution 

of proceedings under this section, in cases where 

he finds that there is an imminent danger to the 

public health or safety.’’ 21 U.S.C. 824(d). 

5While Respondent’s DEA registration expired on 

January 31, 2009, and there is no evidence that 

Respondent has filed a renewal application, I 

conclude that this case is not moot. This case began 

with an immediate suspension, Respondent has not 

surrendered its state licenses, and there is no 

evidence that Respondent has gone out of business. 

See William Lockridge, 77791, 77797 (2006) (noting 

case is not moot where order creates collateral 

consequences or where conduct is capable of 

repetition yet evading review); RX Direct Pharmacy, 

Inc., 72 FR 54070 (2007). Furthermore, in executing 

the Suspension Order, Respondent’s controlled 

substances were seized. Under 21 U.S.C. 824(f), 

‘‘upon a revocation order becoming final,’’ any 

controlled substances which were seized ‘‘shall be 

forfeited to the United States,’’ and ‘‘[a]ll right, title, 

and interest in [the] controlled substances * * * 

shall vest in the United States.’’ As I have 

previously recognized, a litigant cannot defeat the 

effect of this provision by simply allowing its 

registration to expire. Moreover, it is unclear 

that the majority of his business was for 

non-controlled drugs. 

Investigators determined that 

Respondent was shipping 4,000 to 5,000 

prescriptions a month to customers 

located in approximately 46 States. The 

Investigators also obtained several emails which Mr. Ihenacho had sent to 

Jack. In an e-mail sent on September 29, 

2006, Mr. Ihenacho wrote: 

Now, my concerns. I want to do business 

with you and I want to do it the right way. 

As a pharmacist trained here in the USA, I 

know that the Federal USA law concerning 

the prescribing of controlled substances by 

any doctor requires that the doctor be 

licensed and registered in any state where 

that doctor wants to practice. My observation 

so far is that it is only one doctor who is 

writing for everything for every patient, no 

matter which state the patient is located [in]. 

Could it be that this doctor is registered in 

all USA states? Please clarify this to me and 

if so, I would like to see such a blanket 

registration and license of the doctor. 

The following week, Mr. Ihenacho 

reiterated his concern. In an October 5, 

2006 e-mail to Jack, Mr. Ihenacho: 

You did not send me any information as 

to which states that we cannot ship to. Please 

furnish me with this information ASAP so 

that we can be more careful here. If I ship to 

any state that I am not supposed to, it might 

cost me my license. * * * Also, I really need 

to speak with the Doctor directly. * * * I 

must have to speak with him so that I can 

make sure that every thing is alright with his 

prescribing abilities in the states that he is 

prescribing. This is very important. 

Five months later, the issue 

apparently had still not been resolved. 

In a March 8, 2007 e-mail, Mr. Ihenacho 

wrote: 

Again, you have not addressed all of the 

issue[s] that I raised in my letter to you. 

* * * Do you understand how much trouble 

that I will be in if and when the DEA comes 

to me? I don’t think that you understand, 

making money is good but I believe that it 

must be made in a good and honest manner 

with great respect to the law. I do have an 

issue with the doctors who are writing for 

your clients. Yesterday, you said something 

about hiring some nurses to get involved in 

screening patients and that you will have 

qualified doctors to work with them to make 

sure that anyone who calls in for any diet pill 

or a sedative hypnotic such as Diazepam, 

clonazepam, lorazepam, etc[.,] does indeed 

need them. If you can establish a good 

relationship between the patient and the 

doctor through hiring nurses who actually go 

to these patient[’]s homes to see them, then 

I believe that is legal because the nurse will 

report to the doctor wh[a]t he or she feels 

about the patient[’]s request for the 

medication. * * * I do not feel very 

comfortable at all feeling [sic] medications 

where I know that there is really no doctor/ 

patient[] interaction. I have tried to get at 

least one patient profile, but so far, I have not 

ben [sic] able to get one. I need to have a 

documented history of the patients and 

doctors conversations that warrants them to 

receive these medications through 

pharmacies such as mine. 

Notwithstanding the concerns he 

expressed in these e-mails, Respondent 

proceeded to dispense controlledsubstance prescriptions which were 

written by doctors who were located in 

different States than where the 

‘‘patients’’ resided. For example, the 

investigative file indicates that 

Respondent dispensed numerous 

prescriptions issued by Dr. Onochie 

Aghaegbuna, a physician who was 

licensed in Virginia,3 to patients in 

other States where he was not licensed. 

These include prescriptions for 

phendimetrazine, a schedule III 

stimulant, which were written for 

residents of Honolulu, Hawaii, and 

Sewell, New Jersey, as well as residents 

of Pasadena and Placerville, California. 

Respondent also dispensed 

prescriptions for alprazolam issued by 

Dr. Aghaegbuna to residents of 

Woodbridge, New Jersey, and Fort 

Worth, Texas, and prescriptions for 

phentermine 37.5 mg. to residents of 

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and West 

Babylon, New York. 

As part of the various Internet 

prescribing schemes, Respondent also 

filled the prescriptions issued by other 

physicians. For example, Dr. Lynnea N. 

Burr of San Antonio, Texas, issued a 

prescription for phendimetrazine to a 

resident of Glencoe, Illinois; a 

prescription for diazepam 10 mg., to a 

resident of St. Louis Park, Minnesota; a 

prescription for phentermine 37.5 mg., 

to residents of St. Louis, Missouri; 

Portsmouth, New Hampshire, South 

Park, Pennsylvania; Bernice, Oklahoma; 

and Dearborn, Michigan; and 

prescriptions for alprazolam 2 mg., to 

residents of Shelton, Connecticut and 

Morrisville, Pennsylvania. 

Discussion 

Section 304(a) of the Controlled 

Substance Act (CSA) provides that ‘‘[a] 

registration * * * to * * * dispense a 

controlled substance * * * may be 

suspended or revoked by the Attorney 

General upon a finding that the 

registrant * * * has committed such 

acts as would render his registration 

under section 823 of this title 

inconsistent with the public interest as 

determined under such section.’’ 21 

U.S.C. 824(a).4 In determining the 

public interest, the CSA directs that the 

following factors be considered: 

(1) The recommendation of the appropriate 

State licensing board or professional 

disciplinary authority. 

(2) The applicant’s experience in 

dispensing * * * controlled substances. 

(3) The applicant’s conviction record under 

Federal or State laws relating to the 

manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of 

controlled substances. 

(4) Compliance with applicable State, 

Federal, or local laws relating to controlled 

substances. 

(5) Such other conduct which may threaten 

the public health and safety. 

Id. 823(f). 

‘‘[T]hese factors are * * * considered 

in the disjunctive.’’ Robert A. Leslie, 

M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003). I ‘‘may 

rely on any one or a combination of 

factors, and may give each factor the 

weight [I] deem appropriate in 

determining whether a registration’’ is 

consistent with the public interest and 

whether a registrant has committed acts 

which warranted the suspension of his/ 

her registration. Id. Moreover, I am ‘‘not 

required to make findings as to all of the 

factors.’’ Hoxie v. DEA, 419 F.3d 477, 

482 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Morall v. 

DEA, 412 F.3d 165, 173–74 (D.C. Cir. 

2005). 

As explained below, the investigative 

file amply demonstrates that 

Respondent’s experience in dispensing 

controlled substances and compliance 

record is characterized by its repeated 

filling of unlawful prescriptions under 

both Federal and State laws. Moreover, 

I further note that the State of 

Massachusetts has suspended 

Respondent’s pharmacy license and 

controlled substances registration.5


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10075 

whether Respondent has been indicted, and if so, 

whether forfeiture of the controlled substances has 

been sought in that proceeding. I thus conclude that 

this case remains a live controversy. 

6The Supreme Court has recently explained that 

‘‘the prescription requirement * * * ensures 

patients use controlled substances under the 

supervision of a doctor so as to prevent addiction 

and recreational abuse. As a corollary, [it] also bars 

doctors from peddling to patients who crave the 

drugs for those prohibited uses.’’ Gonzales v. 

Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 274 (2006) (citing United 

States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122, 135 (1975)). 

7Even if there was no direct evidence of Mr. 

Ihenacho’s knowledge, I would still hold that he 

had reason to know the prescriptions were illegal. 

As the California Court of Appeal has noted: the 

‘‘proscription of the unlicensed practice of 

medicine is neither an obscure nor an unusual state 

prohibition of which ignorance can reasonably be 

claimed, and certainly not by persons * * * who 

are licensed health care providers. Nor can such 

persons reasonably claim ignorance of the fact that 

authorization of a prescription pharmaceutical 

constitutes the practice of medicine.’’ Hageseth v. 

Superior Court, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 385, 403 (Ct. App. 

2007). 

In Hageseth, the California Court of Appeal 

upheld the State’s jurisdiction to criminally 

prosecute an out-of-state physician, who prescribed 

a drug to a California resident over the Internet, for 

the unauthorized practice of medicine. Moreover, 

the Medical Board of California has issued 

numerous Citation Orders to out-of-state physicians 

for Internet prescribing to state residents. See, e.g., 

Citation Order Harry Hoff (June 17, 2003); Citation 

Order Carlos Gustavo Levy (Nov. 30, 2001). It has 

also issued press releases announcing its position 

on the issuance of prescriptions by physicians who 

do not hold a California license. See Medical Board 

of California, Record Fines Issued by Medical Board 

to Physicians in Internet Prescribing Cases (News 

Release Feb. 10, 2003) (available at http:// 

www.mbc.ca.gov/NR_2003_02– 

10_internetdrugs.htm). 

Factors Two and Four—Respondent’s 

Experience in Dispensing Controlled 

Substances and Record of Compliance 

With Applicable Laws 

Under DEA’s regulation, a 

prescription for a controlled substance 

is unlawful unless it has been ‘‘issued 

for a legitimate medical purpose by an 

individual practitioner acting in the 

usual course of his professional 

practice.’’ 21 CFR 1306.04(a). The 

regulation further provides that while 

‘‘[t]he responsibility for the proper 

prescribing and dispensing of controlled 

substances is upon the prescribing 

practitioner, * * * a corresponding 

responsibility rests with the pharmacist 

who fills the prescription.’’ Id. 

(emphasis added). Continuing, the 

regulation states that ‘‘the person 

knowingly filling such a purported 

prescription, as well as the person 

issuing it, [is] subject to the penalties 

provided for violations of the provisions 

of law relating to controlled 

substances.’’ Id. 

DEA has long interpreted this 

provision ‘‘as prohibiting a pharmacist 

from filling a prescription for a 

controlled substance when he either 

‘knows or has reason to know that the 

prescription was not written for a 

legitimate medical purpose.’ ’’ Medicine 

Shoppe-Jonesborough, 73 FR 363, 381 

(2008) (quoting Medic-Aid Pharmacy, 55 

FR 30043, 30044 (1990)), aff’d Medicine 

Shoppe-Jonesborough v. DEA, 2008 WL 

4899525 (6th Cir. 2008); see also Frank’s 

Corner Pharmacy, 60 FR 17574, 17576 

(1995); Ralph J. Bertolino, 55 FR 4729, 

4730 (1990); United States v. Seelig, 622 

F.2d 207, 213 (6th Cir. 1980). This 

Agency has further held that ‘‘[w]hen 

prescriptions are clearly not issued for 

legitimate medical purposes, a 

pharmacist may not intentionally close 

his eyes and thereby avoid [actual] 

knowledge of the real purpose of the 

prescription.’’ Bertolino, 55 FR at 4730 

(citations omitted).6

In United Prescription Services, Inc., 

I further held that ‘‘[a] physician who 

engages in the unauthorized practice of 

medicine is not a ‘practitioner acting in 

the usual course of * * * professional 

practice.’ ’’ 21 CFR 1306.04(a). This rule 

derives from the text of the CSA, which 

defines the ‘‘[t]he term ‘practitioner’ [to] 

mean[] a physician * * * licensed, 

registered, or otherwise permitted, by 

the United States or the jurisdiction in 

which he practices * * * to * * * 

dispense * * * a controlled substance.’’ 

21 U.S.C. 802(21). See also 21 U.S.C. 

823(f) (‘‘The Attorney General shall 

register practitioners * * * to dispense 

* * * if the applicant is authorized to 

dispense * * * controlled substances 

under the laws of the State in which he 

practices.’’). As the Supreme Court has 

explained: ‘‘In the case of a physician 

[the CSA] contemplates that he is 

authorized by the State to practice 

medicine and to dispense drugs in 

connection with his professional 

practice.’’ United States v. Moore, 423 

U.S. 122, 140–41 (1975) (emphasis 

added). A controlled-substance 

prescription issued by a physician who 

lacks the license necessary to practice 

medicine within a State is therefore 

unlawful under the CSA. Cf. 21 CFR 

1306.03(a)(1) (‘‘A prescription for a 

controlled substance may be issued only 

by an individual practitioner who is 

* * * [a]uthorized to prescribe 

controlled substances by the jurisdiction 

in which he is licensed to practice his 

profession[.]’’). 

As found above, Respondent’s owner 

knew that the Internet prescriptions he 

filled were unlawful. Indeed, as Mr. 

Ihenacho wrote in an e-mail to the 

owner of one of the schemes: ‘‘As a 

pharmacist trained here in the USA, I 

know that the Federal USA law 

concerning the prescribing of controlled 

substances by any doctor requires that 

the doctor be licensed and registered in 

any state where that doctor wants to 

practice. * * * My observation * * * is 

that it is only one doctor who is writing 

for everything for every patient, no 

matter [where] the patient is located.’’ 

Moreover, in a further e-mail, Mr. 

Ihenacho wrote that he needed to speak 

with the doctor who was prescribing in 

Jack’s scheme so he could ‘‘make sure 

that every thing is alright with his 

prescribing abilities in the state that he 

is prescribing.’’ 

Mr. Ihenacho was thus well aware of 

the legal requirements for a valid 

prescription. In any event, state 

prohibitions against the unlicensed 

practice of medicine are a common 

feature of the regulation of medical 

practice, and those who practice the 

profession of pharmacy are obligated to 

know these rules.7 See, e.g., Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code 2052 (prohibiting unlicensed 

practice of medicine); Cal. Health & 

Safety Code § 11352(a) (prohibiting 

furnishing a controlled substance 

‘‘unless upon the written prescription of 

a physician * * * licensed to practice 

in this state’’); Haw. Rev. Stat. 453–1 

(defining practice of medicine); id. 453– 

2 (requiring license to practice); 225 Ill. 

Comp. Stat. Ann. 60/3 (licensure 

requirement); id. 60/3.5 (prohibiting 

unlicensed practice); id. 60/49 (listing 

acts constituting holding oneself out to 

the public as a physician); id. 60/49.5 

(requiring persons engaged in 

telemedicine to hold Illinois license); 

Mich. Comp. Laws 333.17001 (defining 

practice of medicine), id. 17011(1) 

(requiring license to practice); id. 

333.7303 (requiring controlled 

substance registration to dispense); N.H. 

Rev. Stat. Ann. 329:1 (defining practice 

of medicine); id. 329:24 (unlicensed 

practice); Tex. Occ. Code 155.001; see 

also id. 151.056(a) (‘‘A person who is 

physically located in another 

jurisdiction but who, through the use of 

any medium, including an electronic 

medium, performs an act that is part of 

a patient care service initiated in this 

state, * * * and that would affect the 

diagnosis or treatment of the patient, is 

considered to be engaged in the practice 

of medicine in this state and is subject 

to appropriate regulations by the 

board.’’); 22 Tex. Admin. Code 174.4(c) 

(‘‘Physicians who treat and prescribe 

through the Internet are practicing 

medicine and must possess appropriate 

licensure in all jurisdictions where 

patients reside.’’); Tex. Health & Safety 

Code 481.061(a) (requiring state 

registration to dispense controlled 

substance); id. 481.063(d) (requiring as 

a condition for registration that ‘‘a 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10076 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

8 In particular, I rely on the prescriptions Dr. 

Aghaegbuna issued to residents of California, 

Hawaii, and Texas. In preparing this Order, I have 

visited the Web sites of the medical licensing 

authorities of these States and verified that Dr. 

Aghaegbuna was not licensed by them. 

I have also visited the Web sites of the respective 

State authorities of Illinois, Michigan, and New 

Hampshire, and determined that Dr. Burr was not 

licensed in these States. Respondent nonetheless 

dispensed prescriptions issued by Dr. Burr for 

residents of these States in violation of state and 

Federal laws. 

9Respondent also had ample reason to know that 

prescriptions were unlawful because he knew that 

the prescribers were not physically examining the 

patients. As Mr. Ihenacho wrote in a March 8, 2007 

e-mail, ‘‘I do not feel very comfortable at all feeling 

[sic] medications where I know that there is really 

no doctor/patient interaction.’’ Indeed, under 

numerous State medical practice standards, with 

only limited exceptions, a physician must take a 

medical history and physically examine a patient in 

order to properly diagnose the patient and 

recommend treatment options including prescribing 

a drug. See, e.g., N.J. Admin. Code 13:35–7.1A(a); 

S.C. Code Regs. 81–28. 

10To make clear, I would have revoked 

Respondent’s registration had it not expired prior 

to the issuance of this Order. 

practitioner [be] licensed under the laws 

of this State’’). 

As I have previously explained, an 

entity which voluntarily engages in 

commerce by shipping controlled 

substances to persons located in other 

States is properly charged with 

knowledge of the laws regarding both 

the practice of medicine and pharmacy 

in those States. United, 72 FR at 50408. 

In short, given that Dr. Aghaegbuna was 

licensed to practice medicine in 

Virginia, and yet was prescribing to 

persons who did not reside in that State 

and who frequently lived hundreds of— 

and in many instances more than a 

thousand—miles away,8 Respondent 

had ample reason to know that the 

prescriptions were unlawful under both 

the CSA and the laws of numerous 

States. See id. at 50409.9

As the forgoing demonstrates, 

Respondent knowingly violated Federal 

law in dispensing thousands of 

prescriptions which lacked a 

legitimated purpose and were issued by 

practitioners acting outside of the usual 

course of professional practice. 21 CFR 

1306.04(a). Respondent’s experience in 

dispensing controlled substances is thus 

characterized by its repeated and 

flagrant violations of both the CSA and 

State laws; the scope of its illegal 

dispensings clearly establish that its 

continued registration was ‘‘inconsistent 

with the public interest,’’ and posed ‘‘an 

imminent danger to the public health or 

safety’’ which warranted the immediate 

suspension of its registration.10 21 

U.S.C. 824(a) & (d). 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 824, as well as 28 CFR 

0.100(b) & 0.104, I affirm my order 

which immediately suspended the nowexpired DEA Certificate of Registration, 

BM3972747, issued to Meetinghouse 

Community Pharmacy, Inc. This order is 

effective immediately. 

Dated: February 26, 2009. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–4909 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Importer of Controlled Substances; 

Notice of Registration 

By Notice dated November 26, 2008, 

and published in the Federal Register 

on December 5, 2008, (73 FR 74194), 

Cerilliant Corporation, 811 Paloma 

Drive, Suite A, Round Rock, Texas 

78665–2402, made application by 

renewal to the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) to be registered as 

an importer of the basic classes of 

controlled substances listed in 

schedules I and II: 

Drug Schedule 

Cathinone (1235) ......................................................................................................................................................................................... I 

Methcathinone (1237) .................................................................................................................................................................................. I 

N-Ethylamphetamine (1475) ........................................................................................................................................................................ I 

N,N-Dimethylamphetamine (1480) .............................................................................................................................................................. I 

Fenethylline (1503) ...................................................................................................................................................................................... I 

Gamma hydroxybutyric acid (2010) ............................................................................................................................................................ I 

Ibogaine (7260) ........................................................................................................................................................................................... I 

Lysergic acid diethylamide (7315) ............................................................................................................................................................... I 

2,5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)-propylthiophenethylamine(7348) ................................................................................................................................ I 

Marihuana (7360) ........................................................................................................................................................................................ I 

Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370) ..................................................................................................................................................................... I 

Mescaline (7381) ......................................................................................................................................................................................... I 

3,4,5-Trimethoxyamphetamine (7390) ........................................................................................................................................................ I 

4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine (7391) .............................................................................................................................................. I 

4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine (7392) .......................................................................................................................................... I 

4-Methyl-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine (7395) .............................................................................................................................................. I 

2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine (7396) ............................................................................................................................................................ I 

3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine (7400) .................................................................................................................................................... I 

3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine (7404) ........................................................................................................................................ I 

3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (7405) ............................................................................................................................................ I 

4-Methoxyamphetamine (7411) ................................................................................................................................................................... I 

Alpha-methyltryptamine (7432) ................................................................................................................................................................... I 

Diethyltryptamine (7434) ............................................................................................................................................................................. I 

Dimethyltryptamine (7435) .......................................................................................................................................................................... I 

Psilocybin (7437) ......................................................................................................................................................................................... I 

Psilocyn (7438) ............................................................................................................................................................................................ I 

N-Benzylpiperazine (7493) .......................................................................................................................................................................... I 

Etorphine (except HCl) (9056) .................................................................................................................................................................... I 

Heroin (9200) ............................................................................................................................................................................................... I 

Morphine-N-oxide (9307) ............................................................................................................................................................................. I 

Normorphine (9313) .................................................................................................................................................................................... I 

Pholcodine (9314) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... I 

Dextromoramide (9613) ............................................................................................................................................................................... I 

Dipipanone (9622) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... I 

Trimeperidine (9646) ................................................................................................................................................................................... I 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES