Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration

                    On February 23, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Massoud Amini, M.D., of Woodland Hills, California. (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration No. BA6612142, alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is “currently without authority to handle controlled substances in California, 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 with DEA 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 1;                     *see also*21 CFR 1316.67.                          ( print page 9167)    

## 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.

# Footnotes

1.                             Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated April 18, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the Declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on February 29, 2024, the DI successfully served the OSC via email to Registrant's registered email address, as the DI's email was not returned undeliverable. RFAAX 2, at 2;                         *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).                    

                        The DI made several other attempts to serve Registrant with the OSC, but they were unsucessful. On February 27, 2024, the DI attempted personal service at Registrant's last known forwarding address. RFAAX 2, at 2. The DI left a copy of the OSC at the address and asked the current residents to give the documents to Registrant.                         *Id.*                         Also on this date, the DI called and texted Registrant via a telephone number provided by the current residents and received no response.                         *Id.*                         On February 29, 2024, the DI attempted to contact Registrant by his registered phone number and left her contact information with an acquaintance of Registrant who answered the phone.                         *Id.*                         at 2-3. On March 1, 2024, the DI sent the OSC via certified mail to four addresses associated with Registrant, including Registrant's registered address.                         *Id.*                         at 3, Attachment C. According to the DI, all four mailings were returned unable to forward.                         *Id.*                         at 3. The DI also contacted the Medical Board of California in attempting service, but the Board was unable to provide a current address.                         *Id.*                         at 3.                    

                        In sum, the Agency finds that Registrant was successfully served the OSC by email and 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.                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             Under 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.*
        Back to Citation      

3.                             This 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.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2025-02342 Filed 2-6-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P