Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 106589 

4This 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. 

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).4

Under Louisiana statute, ‘‘dispense’’ 

means ‘‘to deliver a controlled 

dangerous substance to the ultimate 

user or human research subject by or 

pursuant to the lawful order of a 

practitioner, including the packaging, 

labeling, or compounding necessary to 

prepare the substance for such 

delivery.’’ La. Stat. Ann. section 

40:961(14) (2024). A ‘‘practitioner’’ 

means ‘‘a physician . . . or other person 

licensed, registered, or otherwise 

permitted to distribute, dispense, 

conduct research with respect to, or 

administer a controlled dangerous 

substance in the course of professional 

practice or research in th[e] state.’’ Id. 

section 40:961(35). 

Further, Louisiana statute states that 

‘‘[e]very person who . . . distributes, 

procures, possesses, prescribes, or 

dispenses any controlled dangerous 

substance within th[e] state . . . shall 

obtain a controlled dangerous substance 

license issued by the Louisiana Board of 

Pharmacy in accordance with the rules 

and regulations promulgated by the 

board prior to engaging in such 

activity.’’ Id. section 40:973(A)(1). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Respondent currently 

lacks authority to handle controlled 

substances in Louisiana because 

Respondent’s Louisiana medical license 

is suspended, and Respondent’s 

Louisiana controlled substance license 

is lapsed. As discussed above, an 

individual must be a licensed 

practitioner and must hold a Louisiana 

controlled substance license to dispense 

controlled substances in Louisiana. 

Thus, because Respondent lacks 

authority to practice medicine in 

Louisiana, as well as lacks authority to 

handle controlled substances in 

Louisiana, Respondent is not eligible to 

maintain a DEA registration. RD, at 5– 

6. 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. BA7786013 issued to 

Shiva Akula, M.D. 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 Shiva Akula, M.D., to renew or 

modify this registration, as well as any 

other pending application of Shiva 

Akula, M.D., for additional registration 

in Louisiana. 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. 2024–31320 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. DEA–1463] 

Importer of Controlled Substances 

Application: Curia New York, Inc. 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of application. 

SUMMARY: Curia New York, Inc. has 

applied to be registered as an importer 

of basic class(es) of controlled 

substance(s). Refer to Supplementary 

Information listed below for further 

drug information. 

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of 

the affected basic class(es), and 

applicants, therefore, may submit 

electronic comments on or objections to 

the issuance of the proposed registration 

on or before January 29, 2025. Such 

persons may also file a written request 

for a hearing on the application on or 

before January 29, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: The Drug Enforcement 

Administration requires that all 

comments be submitted electronically 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, 

which provides the ability to type short 

comments directly into the comment 

field on the web page or attach a file for 

lengthier comments. Please go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions at that site for 

submitting comments. Upon submission 

of your comment, you will receive a 

Comment Tracking Number. Please be 

aware that submitted comments are not 

instantaneously available for public 

view on https://www.regulations.gov. If 

you have received a Comment Tracking 

Number, your comment has been 

successfully submitted and there is no 

need to resubmit the same comment. All 

requests for a hearing must be sent to: 

(1) Drug Enforcement Administration, 

Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 

Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 

22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
106590 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 

1Based 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. 

2Under 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 

dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov. 

Administration, Attn: DEA Federal 

Register Representative/DPW, 8701 

Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 

22152. All requests for a hearing should 

also be sent to: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Attn: Administrator, 

8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, 

Virginia 22152. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this 

is notice that on November 13, 2024, 

Curia New York, Inc., 33 Riverside 

Avenue, Rensselaer, New York 12144, 

applied to be registered as an importer 

of the following basic class(es) of 

controlled substance(s): 

Controlled substance Drug code Schedule 

Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid ................................................................................................................................... 2010 I 

The company plans to import the 

listed controlled substances for bulk 

manufacturing into other controlled 

substances to be distributed to their 

customers. No other activity for this 

drug code is authorized for this 

registration. 

Approval of permit applications will 

occur only when the registrant’s 

business activity is consistent with what 

is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). 

Authorization will not extend to the 

import of Food and Drug 

Administration approved or nonapproved finished dosage forms for 

commercial sale. 

Matthew Strait, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31292 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

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). 

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] § 1316.67.’’ Id. § 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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1