Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 106581 

5This 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). 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, M.D., 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, M.D., 43 FR at 

27617. 

1Respondent’s June 25, 2024, hearing request was 

an amended version of an initial document filed on 

June 24, 2024. Respondent also submitted an 

amended version of her Answer on the same day 

of its initial filing, June 25, 2024. 

2See Respondent’s Response to Government’s 

Motion for Summary Disposition and Request for 

Hearing (Opposition). 

3On August 5, 2024, Respondent filed a letter, 

dated August 2, 2024, seeking to appeal the ALJ’s 

Recommended Decision; however, in this letter, 

Respondent did not present any additional 

arguments for the Agency to consider. 

4See also Government’s Notice of Filing of 

Evidence and Motion for Summary Disposition, 

Exhibit (GX) 2. 

5Under 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, 

Respondent may dispute the Agency’s finding by 

Continued 

Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (‘‘The 

Attorney General can register a 

physician to dispense controlled 

substances ‘if the applicant is 

authorized to dispense . . . controlled 

substances under the laws of the State 

in which he practices.’ . . . The very 

definition of a ‘practitioner’ eligible to 

prescribe includes physicians ‘licensed, 

registered, or otherwise permitted, by 

the United States or the jurisdiction in 

which he practices’ to dispense 

controlled substances. § 802(21).’’). The 

Agency has applied these principles 

consistently. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 

M.D., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. 

for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 826 (4th 

Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 

M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).5

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 § 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. § 11026(c). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant lacks authority 

to practice medicine in California. As 

discussed above, an individual must be 

a licensed practitioner to dispense a 

controlled substance in California. 

Thus, because Registrant lacks authority 

to practice medicine in California and, 

therefore, is not 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. FA0060359 issued to 

Soroosh Armandi, D.O. 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 Soroosh Armandi, D.O., 

to renew or modify this registration, as 

well as any other pending application of 

Soroosh Armandi, D.O., for additional 

registration in California. This Order is 

effective January 29, 2025. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on December 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. 2024–31324 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 24–52] 

Maria Dewitt, N.P.; Decision and Order 

On June 21, 2024, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Maria Dewitt, N.P. 

(Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC 

proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration No. MD7143960, at the 

registered address of 9038 High Branch, 

San Antonio, Texas. Id. at 1. The OSC 

alleged that Respondent’s DEA 

registration should be revoked because 

Respondent is ‘‘without authority to 

handle controlled substances in the 

State of Texas, the state in which [she 

is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 

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

On June 25, 2024, Respondent 

requested a hearing and filed an Answer 

to the OSC.1 On June 28, 2024, the 

Government filed a Notice of Filing of 

Evidence and Motion for Summary 

Disposition, which Respondent 

opposed.2 On August 2, 2024, 

Administrative Law Judge Teresa A. 

Wallbaum (the ALJ) granted the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition and recommended the 

revocation of Respondent’s registration, 

finding that because Respondent lacks 

state authority to handle controlled 

substances in Texas, the state in which 

she is registered with DEA, ‘‘[t]here is 

no genuine issue of material fact in this 

case.’’ Order Granting the Government’s 

Motion for Summary Disposition, and 

Recommended Rulings, Findings of 

Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision 

of the Administrative Law Judge (RD), at 

8–9. Respondent did not file exceptions 

to the RD.3

Having reviewed the entire record, the 

Agency adopts and hereby incorporates 

by reference the entirety of the ALJ’s 

rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of 

law, and recommended sanction as 

found in the RD and summarizes and 

expands upon portions thereof herein. 

Findings of Fact 

The Government has alleged that 

Respondent lacks a prescriptive 

authority delegation agreement with a 

physician, which is required for a Texas 

advanced practice registered nurse to 

handle controlled substances. RD, at 4, 

7–8.4 According to Texas online 

records, of which the Agency takes 

official notice, Respondent does not 

currently have a prescriptive authority 

delegation agreement with a physician.5


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
106582 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 

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 

dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov. 

6 In her Opposition, Respondent argues that there 

are material facts in dispute that require a hearing, 

specifically mentioning her state and federal 

authority to handle controlled substances. 

Respondent’s Opposition, at 6. However, as the ALJ 

correctly notes in the RD, Respondent does not 

actually dispute the material fact that she lacks state 

and federal authority to handle controlled 

substances, with Respondent admitting that she has 

no current prescriptive authority delegation 

agreement with a physician. RD, at 9; Respondent’s 

Opposition, at 2, 11. The Agency also agrees with 

the ALJ’s finding that the other facts in dispute, 

such as Respondent’s address, are immaterial and 

not dispositive to the adjudication of the current 

matter. RD, at 9 n.7 (citing Michael Jones, M.D., 86 

FR 20728, 20729 (2021)). 

7This 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). 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, M.D., 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 27617. 

Texas Medical Board, Healthcare 

Provider Search, https://

profile.tmb.state.tx.us/Search.aspx (last 

visited date of signature of this Order). 

Accordingly, the Agency finds that 

Respondent is not currently authorized 

to handle controlled substances in 

Texas, the state in which she is 

registered with the DEA.6

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 Controlled 

Substances Act (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. Gonzales v. 

Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (‘‘The 

Attorney General can register a 

physician to dispense controlled 

substances ‘if the applicant is 

authorized to dispense . . . controlled 

substances under the laws of the State 

in which he practices.’ . . . The very 

definition of a ‘practitioner’ eligible to 

prescribe includes physicians ‘licensed, 

registered, or otherwise permitted, by 

the United States or the jurisdiction in 

which he practices’ to dispense 

controlled substances. § 802(21).’’). The 

Agency has applied these principles 

consistently. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 

M.D., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. 

for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 826 (4th 

Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 

M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).7

According to Texas statute, 

‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘the delivery of a 

controlled substance in the course of 

professional practice or research, by a 

practitioner or person acting under the 

lawful order of a practitioner, to an 

ultimate user or research subject. The 

term includes the prescribing, 

administering, packaging, labeling, or 

compounding necessary to prepare the 

substance for delivery.’’ Tex. Health & 

Safety Code Ann. § 481.002(12) (2024). 

Further, a ‘‘practitioner’’ includes ‘‘an 

advanced practice registered nurse or 

physician assistant to whom a physician 

has delegated the authority to prescribe 

or order a drug or device . . . .’’ Id. 

§ 481.002(39)(D). Texas statute provides 

that ‘‘[a] physician may delegate to an 

advanced practice registered nurse or 

physician assistant, acting under 

adequate physician supervision, the act 

of prescribing or ordering a drug or 

device as authorized through a 

prescriptive authority agreement 

between the physician and the 

advanced practice registered nurse or 

physician assistant, as applicable.’’ Tex. 

Occ. Code Ann. § 157.0512(a) (2024). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Respondent lacks 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in Texas because she does 

not have a prescriptive authority 

delegation agreement with a physician. 

As discussed above, a Texas advanced 

practice registered nurse must have a 

prescriptive authority delegation 

agreement with a physician to dispense 

controlled substances in Texas. Thus, 

because Respondent lacks authority to 

handle controlled substances in Texas, 

Respondent is not eligible to maintain a 

DEA registration. RD, at 8. Accordingly, 

the Agency will order that Respondent’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. MD7143960 issued 

to Maria Dewitt, N.P. 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 Maria Dewitt, N.P., to renew or 

modify this registration, as well as any 

other pending application of Maria 

Dewitt, N.P., for additional registration 

in Texas. This Order is effective January 

29, 2025. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on December 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. 2024–31330 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Robert Esser, D.D.S.; Decision and 

Order 

On December 18, 2023, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Robert Esser, D.D.S., of 

Erie, Pennsylvania (Registrant). Request 

for Final Agency Action (RFAA), 

Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 3. The OSC 

proposed the revocation of Registrant’s 

Certificate of Registration No. 

BE3510193, alleging that Registrant’s 

registration should be revoked because 

Registrant is ‘‘currently without 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania, the state in which [he is] 

registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 

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


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1