```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 106590-106591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31319]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Samreen Riaz, D.D.S.; Decision and Order

    On February 27, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Samreen Riaz, 
D.D.S., of Hawthorne, California (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. FR4257792, 
alleging 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 
California, the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2 
(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
    The OSC notified Registrant of her right to file a written request 
for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would 
be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in default. Id. 
(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 May 
23, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was 
adequate. The included declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator 
(DI) indicates that on March 12, 2024, the DI attempted to serve 
Registrant with the OSC at Registrant's registered address, a 
clinic. RFAAX 1, at 1. However, the clinic manager who was at the 
registered location claimed to not know Registrant, despite working 
at the location for nearly five years. Id. The DI then left several 
voicemails with the clinic's Human Resources department, which went 
unanswered. Id. at 2. On March 19, 2024, the DI mailed a copy of the 
OSC to a different address Registrant had on file with DEA; however, 
as of April 5, 2024, the mailing was never claimed by Registrant and 
was scheduled to be returned to DEA. Id. Finally, on April 5, 2024, 
the DI emailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant's registered email 
address. Id.; see also id., Attachment A. The DI did not receive any 
error message in response to the email. Id. at 2. Accordingly, the 
Agency finds that Registrant was successfully served the OSC by 
email. Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D., 82 FR 34552, 34552 (2017) 
(finding that service by email satisfies due process where the email 
is not returned as undeliverable and other methods have been 
unsuccessful). Further, the Agency finds that the DI'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(c), (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 September 1, 2023, the Dental Board of California revoked 
Registrant's California dental license. RFAAX 2, at 2. According to 
California online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, 
Registrant's California dental license remains revoked.\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 dentist in California, the state in 
which she 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. 
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

[[Page 106591]]

prescribe includes physicians `licensed, registered, or otherwise 
permitted, by the United States or the jurisdiction in which he 
practices' to dispense controlled substances. Sec.  802(21).''). The 
Agency has applied these principles consistently. See, e.g., James L. 
Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371, 71,372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. 
App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 
27617 (1978).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This 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 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 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 dentist 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 dentist 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. 
FR4257792 issued to Samreen Riaz, D.D.S. 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 Samreen Riaz, D.D.S., to renew 
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application 
of Samreen Riaz, D.D.S., 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. 2024-31319 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
```