106588 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 

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. 

1By letter dated September 18, 2024, (filed 

October 7, 2024) Respondent requested a 60-day 

extension to respond to the RD due to the pending 

appeal of an underlying conviction. Respondent’s 

Request for Extension to File Response to Pending 

Action on DEA License (Respondent’s Extension 

Request), at 1. The request was denied. 

2See also Government’s Notice of Filing of 

Evidence and Motion for Summary Disposition, 

Exhibit 1. 

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, 

Respondent 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. 

Under Wyoming law, ‘‘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, administering, 

packaging, labeling, or compounding 

necessary to prepare the substance for 

that delivery.’’ Wyo. Stat. Ann. 

section 35–7–1002(a)(vii) (2024). 

Further, a ‘‘practitioner’’ includes ‘‘[a] 

physician . . . or other 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 th[e] 

state.’’ Id. section 35–7–1002(a)(xx)(A). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Respondent currently 

lacks authority to practice as a 

physician assistant in Wyoming. As 

discussed above, a physician assistant 

must be a licensed practitioner to 

dispense controlled substances in 

Wyoming. Thus, because Respondent 

currently lacks authority to practice as 

a physician assistant in Wyoming and, 

therefore, is not currently authorized to 

handle controlled substances in 

Wyoming, Respondent is not eligible to 

maintain a DEA registration. RD, at 4– 

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. MR4038293 issued 

to Jason Lee Ray, PA–C. 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 Jason Lee Ray, PA–C, to 

renew or modify this registration, as 

well as any other pending application of 

Jason Lee Ray, PA–C, for additional 

registration in Wyoming. 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. 2024–31317 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 24–58] 

Shiva Akula, M.D.; Decision and Order 

On June 24, 2024, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Shiva Akula, M.D., of 

New Orleans, Louisiana (Respondent). 

OSC, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the 

revocation of Respondent’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration No. 

BA7786013, alleging that Respondent’s 

DEA registration should be revoked 

because Respondent is ‘‘without 

authority to prescribe, administer, 

dispense, or otherwise handle 

controlled substances in the State of 

Louisiana, the state in which [he is] 

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

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

By letter dated July 29, 2024, (filed 

August 7, 2024) Respondent requested a 

hearing. On August 29, 2024, the 

Government filed a Motion for 

Summary Disposition, to which 

Respondent did not respond. On 

September 26, 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 Louisiana, the state in 

which he 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 5. 

Respondent did not file exceptions to 

the RD.1

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 

On January 12, 2024, the Louisiana 

State Board of Medical Examiners 

suspended Respondent’s Louisiana 

medical license. RD, at 4.2 On March 31, 

2024, Respondent’s Louisiana medical 

license expired. RD, at 3. On June 1, 

2024, Respondent’s Louisiana 

controlled substance license expired. Id. 

at 4. 

According to Louisiana online 

records, of which the Agency takes 

official notice, Respondent’s Louisiana 

medical license remains suspended.3

Louisiana State Board of Medical 

Examiners, License Verification, https:// 

online.lasbme.org/#/verifylicense (last 

visited date of signature of this Order). 

Further, Respondent’s Louisiana 

controlled substance license status is 

‘‘[l]apsed; not valid for practice.’’ 

Louisiana Board of Pharmacy, License 

Lookup, https://

secure.pharmacy.la.gov/Lookup/ 

LicenseLookup.aspx (last visited date of 

signature of this Order). 

Accordingly, the Agency finds that 

Respondent is not currently licensed to 

practice medicine nor to handle 

controlled substances in Louisiana, the 

state in which he is registered with 

DEA. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
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