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
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 106583 

1Based on the Government’s submissions in its 

RFAA dated March 4, 2024, the Agency finds that 

service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. 

Specifically, the included Declaration from a DEA 

Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on January 

3, 2024, the DI emailed a copy of the OSC to 

Registrant’s registered email address and received 

confirmation that the email was successfully 

delivered. RFAAX 3, at 2, Attachment B; 

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). On December 28, 2023, the DI had 

attempted in-person service of the OSC at 

Registrant’s registered address, and after receiving 

no response, left a business card on the premises. 

RFAAX 3, at 2. Further, on January 3, 2024, DEA 

had mailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant’s 

registered address via certified mail, but the mailing 

was returned. Id. at 2, Attachment A. 

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 the DEA Office of 

the Administrator, Drug Enforcement 

Administration at dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov. 

3This rule derives from the text of two provisions 

of the Controlled Substances Act (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, 76 FR 71371–72; Sheran Arden 

Yeates, D.O., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick 

A. Ricci, D.O., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby 

Watts, D.O., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick 

Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617. 

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 2.1 ‘‘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 3; 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, on October 20, 

2022, the Pennsylvania State Board of 

Dentistry suspended Registrant’s 

Pennsylvania dental license. RFAAX 2, 

at 2. According to Pennsylvania online 

records, of which the Agency takes 

official notice, Registrant’s Pennsylvania 

dental license remains suspended.2

Pennsylvania Licensing System 

Verification Service,https://

www.pals.pa.gov/#!/page/search (last 

visited date of signature of this Order). 

Accordingly, the Agency finds that 

Registrant is not licensed to practice 

dentistry in Pennsylvania, 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. 

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).3

According to Pennsylvania statute, 

‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a 

controlled substance, other drug or 

device to an ultimate user or research 

subject by or pursuant to the lawful 

order of a practitioner, including the 

prescribing, administering, packaging, 

labeling, or compounding necessary to 

prepare such item for that delivery.’’ 35 

Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. section 

780–102(b) (West 2024). Further, a 

‘‘practitioner’’ means ‘‘a physician . . . 

dentist . . . or other person licensed, 

registered or otherwise permitted to 

distribute, dispense, conduct research 

with respect to or to administer a 

controlled substance, other drug or 

device in the course of professional 

practice or research in the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.’’ Id. 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant lacks authority 

to practice dentistry in Pennsylvania. As 

discussed above, an individual must be 

a licensed practitioner to dispense a 

controlled substance in Pennsylvania. 

Thus, because Registrant lacks authority 

to practice dentistry in Pennsylvania 

and, therefore, is not authorized to 

handle controlled substances in 

Pennsylvania, 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. BE3510193 issued to 

Robert Esser, 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 Robert Esser, D.D.S., to renew or 

modify this registration, as well as any 

other pending application of Robert 

Esser, D.D.S., for additional registration 

in Pennsylvania. 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
106584 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 

1Based on the Government’s submissions in its 

RFAA dated April 16, 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 February 26, 

2024, the DI left a copy of the OSC at Registrant’s 

registered address. RFAAX 2, at 2. On the same 

date, the DI emailed a copy of the OSC to 

Registrant’s registered email address and to 

Registrant’s attorney. Id. at 2; see also id., 

Attachment C. On February 27, 2024, the OSC was 

mailed to Registrant’s residential address, with 

delivery confirmed on March 2, 2024. Id. at 2; see 

also id., Attachments D–E. Finally, on February 28, 

2024, the DI left another copy of the OSC at 

Registrant’s residential address. Id. at 2–3. The 

Agency finds that Registrant was successfully 

served the OSC by email on February 26, 2024, as 

the emails to Registrant’s registered email address 

and to Registrant’s attorney were not returned as 

undeliverable. Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D., 82 FR 

34,552, 34,552 (2017) (finding that service by email 

satisfies due process where the email is not 

returned as undeliverable and other methods have 

been unsuccessful). 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. 

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. 2024–31318 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. DEA–1475] 

Importer of Controlled Substances 

Application: Siegfried USA, LLC 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of application. 

SUMMARY: Siegfried USA, LLC 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 

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 20, 2024, 

Siegfried USA, LLC, 33 Industrial Park 

Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, 

applied to be registered as an importer 

of the following basic class(es) of 

controlled substance(s): 

Controlled substance Drug code Schedule 

Phenylacetone ......................................................................................................................................................... 8501 II 

Opium, Raw ............................................................................................................................................................. 9600 II 

Poppy Straw Concentrate ........................................................................................................................................ 9670 II 

The company plans to import the 

listed controlled substances to 

manufacture bulk Active 

Pharmaceuticals Ingredients for 

distribution to its customers. No other 

activities for these drug codes are 

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. 2024–31301 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Matthew Okeke, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On February 14, 2024, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Matthew Okeke, M.D., of 

Las Vegas, Nevada (Registrant). Request 

for Final Agency Action (RFAA), 

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

proposed the revocation of Registrant’s 

Certificate of Registration No. 

FO4173845, alleging that Registrant’s 

registration should be revoked because 

Registrant is ‘‘currently without 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in Nevada, the state in which 

[he is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 

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

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 CFR1301.43). 

Here, Registrant did not request a 

hearing. RFAA, at 2.1 ‘‘A default, unless 

excused, shall be deemed to constitute 

a waiver of the registrant’s/applicant’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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1