106580 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 

1According to Agency records, Registrant’s 

registration expired on June 30, 2024. The fact that 

a registrant allows his registration to expire during 

the pendency of an OSC does not impact the 

Agency’s jurisdiction or prerogative under the 

Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to adjudicate the 

OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 

68476–68479 (2019). 

2Based on the Government’s submissions in its 

RFAA dated May 24, 2024, the Agency finds that 

service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. The 

included declaration from a DEA Diversion 

Investigator (DI) indicates that she was ‘‘unable to 

locate Registrant and [she was] under the belief that 

Registrant was out of the country;’’ accordingly, on 

February 2, 2024, the DI emailed a copy of the OSC 

to Registrant’s registered email address. RFAAX 1, 

at 2. The DI did not state that an undeliverable 

message was ever received. Id. On the same date, 

the DI mailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant’s 

registered address. Id. On February 5, 2024, 

however, the OSC was returned to the DI, along 

with a notice of a forwarding address for Registrant. 

Id.; see also id., Attachment B. On February 14, 

2024, the DI mailed a copy of the OSC to 

Registrant’s forwarding address and later received 

confirmation via the certified mailing receipt that 

the OSC was successfully delivered on February 17, 

2024. Id. at 2; see also id., Attachment C. The 

Agency finds that the DI’s efforts to serve Registrant 

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. 

3Under 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. 

4The OSC lists the number for Registrant’s 

California medical license as 20A9741, RFAAX A, 

at 1; however, the California DCA License Search 

lists Registrant’s California medical license number 

as 9741. 

Number, your comment has been 

successfully submitted and there is no 

need to resubmit the same comment. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 

is notice that on August 26, 2024, Irvine 

Labs Inc., 7305 Murdy Circle, 

Huntington Beach, California 92647– 

3533, applied to be registered as a bulk 

manufacturer of the following basic 

class(es) of controlled substance(s): 

Controlled substance Drug code Schedule 

Lysergic acid diethylamide ...................................................................................................................................... 7315 I 

Mescaline ................................................................................................................................................................. 7381 I 

Peyote ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7415 I 

Diethyltryptamine ..................................................................................................................................................... 7434 I 

Dimethyltryptamine .................................................................................................................................................. 7435 I 

Psilocybin ................................................................................................................................................................. 7437 I 

Psilocyn .................................................................................................................................................................... 7438 I 

The company plans to bulk 

manufacture the above listed controlled 

substances for research and 

development purposes internally and 

for distribution to its research 

customers. No other activities for these 

drug codes are authorized for this 

registration. 

Matthew Strait, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31293 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Soroosh Armandi, D.O.; Decision and 

Order 

On February 1, 2024, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Soroosh Armandi, D.O., 

of San Pedro, California (Registrant). 

Request for Final Agency Action 

(RFAA), Attachment (RFAAX) A, at 1, 3. 

The OSC proposed the revocation of 

Registrant’s Certificate of Registration 

No. FA0060359, alleging that 

Registrant’s registration should be 

revoked because Registrant is ‘‘currently 

without authority to handle controlled 

substances in the State of California, the 

state in which [he is] registered with 

DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(3)).1

The OSC notified Registrant of his 

right to file a written request for hearing, 

and that if he failed to file such a 

request, he would be deemed to have 

waived his right to a hearing and be in 

default. Id. (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). 

Here, Registrant did not request a 

hearing. RFAA, at 2.2 ‘‘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, Registrant’s 

California medical license expired on 

March 31, 2023. RFAAX A, at 2. 

Further, effective June 29, 2023, the 

Osteopathic Medical Board of California 

revoked Registrant’s California medical 

license. Id. According to California 

online records, of which the Agency 

takes official notice, Registrant’s 

California medical license remains 

revoked.3 California DCA License 

Search, https://search.dca.ca.gov (last 

visited date of signature of this Order).4

Accordingly, the Agency finds that 

Registrant is not licensed to practice 

medicine in California, the state in 

which he 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
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