Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 25 / Friday, February 7, 2025 / Notices 9167 

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. 

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, 71372; 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. 

1On June 17, 2024, Respondent filed a Motion to 

Continue Show Cause Hearing to request a 

continuance on the instant proceedings, which the 

Administrative Law Judge denied. 

I. 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 January 

12, 2024, the Medical Board of 

California revoked Registrant’s 

California medical license. RFAAX 1, at 

2. According to California’s online 

records, of which the Agency takes 

official notice, Registrant’s California 

medical 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 medicine in 

California, the state in which he is 

registered with DEA. 

II. 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. See, e.g., 

James L. Hooper, D.O., 76 FR 71371, 

71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 

F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick 

Marsh Blanton, D.O., 43 FR 27616, 

27617 (1978).3

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). Furthermore, 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 medicine in 

California. As discussed above, a 

physician must be a licensed 

practitioner to dispense a controlled 

substance in California. Thus, because 

Registrant currently lacks authority to 

practice medicine 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. BA6612142 issued to 

Massoud Amini, 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 Massoud Amini, M.D., to renew or 

modify this registration, as well as any 

other pending application of Massoud 

Amini, M.D., for additional registration 

in California. This Order is effective 

March 10, 2025. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on January 31, 2025, by Acting 

Administrator Derek Maltz. 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. 2025–02342 Filed 2–6–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 24–47] 

Herold Pierre-Louis, P.A.; Decision and 

Order 

On May 21, 2024, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Herold Pierre-Louis, 

P.A., of Tucson, Arizona (Respondent). 

OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the 

revocation of Respondent’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration No. 

MP7845766, 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 

Arizona, the state in which [he is] 

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

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

On May 30, 2024, Respondent 

requested a hearing and filed an Answer 

to the OSC. On June 10, 2024, the 

Government filed a Motion for 

Summary Disposition, to which 

Respondent did not respond.1 On June 

27, 2024, Administrative Law Judge 

Paul E. Soeffing (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 Arizona, the state in 

which he is registered with DEA, ‘‘there 

is no other fact of consequence for this 

tribunal to decide.’’ Order Granting the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
9168 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 25 / Friday, February 7, 2025 / Notices 

2See also Government’s Notice of Filing of 

Evidence of Lack of State Authority; Service of 

Order to Show Cause; and Motion for Summary 

Disposition, Exhibit A, at 10. 

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. 

4As of August 23, 2024, the Arizona Regulatory 

Board of Physician Assistants website identified 

Respondent’s physician assistant license as 

revoked. However, there is no longer any record of 

Respondent’s licensure on the website. Despite 

being provided an opportunity to so do, Respondent 

has not established that his Arizona license has 

been reinstated or that he otherwise has state 

authority to dispense controlled substances. 

Following the issuance of the RD, Respondent did 

not file any Exceptions to indicate that his license 

had been restored. Additionally, on October 1, 

2024, the Agency issued a Briefing Order requesting 

documentary evidence regarding the status of 

Respondent’s Arizona physician assistant license. 

Respondent’s acknowledged receipt of the Order, 

but did not provide any responsive documentation 

or evidence regarding the status of his Arizona 

license. Accordingly, the Agency finds that 

Respondent’s Arizona physician assistant license 

remains revoked. See Fares F. Yasin, M.D., 88 FR 

74523, 74524 n.5 (2023); Heather M. Entrekin, 

DVM, 88 FR 17266, 17266 (2023). Respondent may 

dispute the Agency’s finding by filing a motion for 

reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen 

calendar days of the date of this Order with 

supporting documentation (showing that 

Respondent had state authority to dispense 

controlled substances on or before 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. 

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 71371, 71372; 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. Moreover, because ‘‘the controlling 

question’’ in a proceeding brought under 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(3) is whether the holder of a practitioner’s 

registration ‘‘is currently authorized to handle 

controlled substances in the [S]tate,’’ Hooper, 76 FR 

71371 (quoting Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847, 

12848 (1997)), the Agency has also long held that 

revocation is warranted even where a practitioner 

is still challenging the underlying action. Bourne 

Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007); Wingfield 

Drugs, 52 FR 27070, 27071 (1987). Thus, it is of no 

consequence that Respondent is still challenging 

the underlying action here, see Respondent’s 

Answer, at 2; Respondent’s Motion to Continue 

Show Cause Hearing. What is consequential is the 

Agency’s finding that Respondent is not currently 

authorized to dispense controlled substances in 

Arizona, the state in which he is registered with the 

DEA. Adley Dasilva, P.A., 87 FR 69341, 69341 n.2 

(2022); see also Order Denying Respondent’s 

Motion to Continue. 

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. 

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 or about November 29, 2023, the 

Arizona Regulatory Board of Physician 

Assistants revoked Respondent’s 

Arizona physician assistant license. RD, 

at 3.2 According to Arizona online 

records, of which the Agency takes 

official notice, as of August 23, 2024, 

the status of Respondent’s Arizona 

physician assistant license was 

revoked.3 Arizona Regulatory Board of 

Physician Assistants, Find Your PA, 

https://www.azpa.gov/PASearch/ 

PASearch (last visited date of signature 

of this Order).4 Accordingly, the Agency 

finds that Respondent is not currently 

licensed to practice as a physician 

assistant in Arizona, 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 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).5

According to Arizona statute, ‘‘[e]very 

person who manufactures, distributes, 

dispenses, prescribes or uses for 

scientific purposes any controlled 

substance within th[e] state or who 

proposes to engage in the manufacture, 

distribution, prescribing or dispensing 

of or using for scientific purposes any 

controlled substance within th[e] state 

must first: (1) [o]btain and possess a 

current license or permit as a medical 

practitioner as defined in § 32–1901 

. . . .’’ Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 36– 

2522(A)(1) (2024). Section 32–1901 

defines a ‘‘[m]edical practitioner’’ as 

‘‘any medical doctor . . . or other 

person who is licensed and authorized 

by law to use and prescribe drugs and 

devices to treat sick and injured human 

beings or animals or to diagnose or 

prevent sickness in human beings or 

animals in [Arizona] or any state, 

territory or district of the United 

States.’’ Id. section 32–1901. 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Respondent lacks 

authority to practice as a physician 

assistant in Arizona. As discussed 

above, only a licensed medical 

practitioner can dispense controlled 

substances in Arizona. Thus, because 

Respondent lacks authority to practice 

as a physician assistant in Arizona, and 

therefore is not a licensed medical 

practitioner, Respondent is not eligible 

to maintain a DEA registration. 

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. MP7845766 issued to 

Herold Pierre-Louis, P.A. Further, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 25 / Friday, February 7, 2025 / Notices 9169 

1According to Agency records, Registrant’s 

registration expired on August 31, 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, 

68476–79 (2019). 

2Based on the Government’s submissions in its 

RFAA dated July 18, 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 May 26, 

2023, Registrant was personally served a copy of the 

OSC at the Arapahoe County Detention Center in 

Centennial, Colorado, where Registrant remained 

incarcerated. RFAAX 3, at 2. 

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 the DEA Office of 

the Administrator, Drug Enforcement 

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

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. 

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 Herold Pierre-Louis, 

P.A., to renew or modify this 

registration, as well as any other 

pending application of Herold PierreLouis, P.A., for additional registration in 

Arizona. This Order is effective March 

10, 2025. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on January 31, 2025, by Acting 

Administrator Derek Maltz. 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. 2025–02339 Filed 2–6–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

James T. Craig, D.D.S.; Decision and 

Order 

On May 24, 2023, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to James T. Craig, D.D.S., 

of Aurora, Colorado (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. FC0032348, alleging that 

Registrant’s registration should be 

revoked because Registrant is ‘‘currently 

without authority to prescribe, 

administer, dispense, or otherwise 

handle controlled substances in 

Colorado, 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. at 2 (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/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 

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 March 23, 

2023, Registrant’s Colorado dental 

license was suspended. RFAAX 2, at 1– 

2. According to Colorado online records, 

of which the Agency takes official 

notice, Registrant’s Colorado dentist 

license is revoked.3 Colorado Division 

of Professions and Occupations License 

Search, https://apps2.colorado.gov/ 

dora/licensing/lookup/licenselookup.

aspx (last visited date of signature of 

this Order). 

Accordingly, the Agency finds that 

Registrant is not licensed to practice as 

a dentist in Colorado, 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).4

According to Colorado statute, 

‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a 

controlled substance to an ultimate user, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1