50180 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 

10 I do not consider remedial measures when a 

Respondent does not unequivocally accept 

responsibility. As discussed, the scope of 

Respondent’s discussion of remedial efforts was 

limited and, therefore, unpersuasive and not 

reassuring. 

1The Government’s Exhibit demonstrates that the 

Florida Board of Medicine approved the settlement 

agreement on April 5, 2021. See Government’s 

Motion for Summary Disposition, Exhibit D, at 1– 

2. 

2According to the Declaration of the lead 

Diversion Investor (hereinafter, DI) assigned to this 

case, the DI mailed two copies of the OSC to 

Respondent on March 31, 2021. Government 

Motion Exhibit 1, at 1–2. By email dated April 2, 

2021, Respondent’s counsel indicated that 

Respondent had received the OSC on April 2, 2021, 

and would be filing a request for hearing within 30 

days, as well as a proposed corrective action plan. 

Request for Hearing (Emailed). Because 

Respondent’s hearing request, was filed within 

thirty days of the DI’s mailing the OSC on April 29, 

2021, I find that the Government’s service of the 

OSC was adequate and that the hearing request was 

timely filed. 

applications for . . . [her] DEA license.’’ 

RFAAX 3, at 1. At the end of her 

Written Statement, Respondent asks for 

‘‘a period of either probation or 

suspension with monitoring’’ ‘‘based on 

the circumstances in which . . . [she] 

unwittingly submitted the wrong 

responses on . . . [her] renewal 

applications.’’ Id. at 2. In other words, 

Respondent does not even acknowledge 

that the OSC also proposed the 

revocation of her registration based on 

21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2). 

Further, the focus of her Written 

Statement is that she ‘‘made a very grave 

mistake which . . . [she] will forever 

regret.’’ Id. at 1. It points out that she 

has ‘‘undergone a lot of emotional stress 

regarding the risk . . . [she] placed . . . 

[her] career in.’’ Id. The Written 

Statement, however, does not move 

beyond the impact her wrongdoing has 

on herself and her career. Id. at 1–2. It 

characterizes her wrongdoing as 

‘‘unwittingly submitting the wrong 

responses,’’ not as violating the law and 

betraying the trust of her employer and 

the Agency. Id. at 2. 

Respondent’s choice to submit a 

Written Statement, instead of taking 

advantage of her right to a hearing, 

means that she cannot answer questions 

about her admittedly and allegedly 

forged controlled substance 

prescriptions and whether she accepts 

responsibility for her wrongdoing. The 

areas of concern I have about her 

admitted and alleged violations include 

how many times she forged controlled 

substance prescriptions for herself, what 

controlled substances were involved, 

why she forged the prescriptions, and 

what she did with the controlled 

substances. The areas of concern I have 

about acceptance of responsibility 

include whether, and for what, 

Respondent unequivocally accepts 

responsibility. In other words, 

Respondent’s recognition of having 

made a ‘‘grave mistake’’ that placed her 

career in risk, the resulting experience 

of ‘‘a lot of emotional stress,’’ and being 

‘‘sorry’’ that she placed herself ‘‘in such 

a position’’ do not constitute 

unequivocal acceptance of 

responsibility for her wrongdoing. All of 

the areas of concern to me remain 

unresolved. 

In sum, the record evidence raises, 

but does not answer, the extent and 

degree of Respondent’s wrongdoing and 

whether Respondent unequivocally 

accepts responsibility for it as the 

Agency requires. Jeffrey Stein, M.D., 84 

FR 46,968, 46,972–73 (2019) 

(unequivocal acceptance of 

responsibility); Jayam Krishna-Iyer, 

M.D., 74 FR 459, 463 (2009) (collecting 

cases). These deficiencies are 

concerning. For example, they may 

mean that Respondent does not 

appreciate (1) the full extent of her 

wrongdoing and the (2) breadth of the 

harm her wrongdoing caused. I am also 

left wondering what Respondent 

learned from her wrongdoing, and 

whether Respondent has the resources 

to avoid future wrongdoing. 

For all of the above reasons, it is not 

reasonable for me, at this time, to trust 

that Respondent will comply with all 

controlled substance legal requirements 

in the future.10 Alra Labs., Inc. v. Drug 

Enf’t Admin., 54 F.3d at 452 (‘‘An 

agency rationally may conclude that 

past performance is the best predictor of 

future performance.’’). Accordingly, I 

shall order that Respondent’s 

registration be revoked, and that all 

pending applications to renew or 

modify Respondent’s registration and 

any pending application for a new 

registration in Georgia, be denied. 

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. MS1972101 issued to 

Uvienome Linda Sakor, N.P. Pursuant to 

28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority 

vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and by 

21 U.S.C. 823(f), I further hereby deny 

any pending application of Uvienome 

Linda Sakor, N.P., to renew or modify 

this registration, as well as any other 

pending application of Uvienome Linda 

Sakor, N.P. for registration in Georgia. 

This Order is effective October 7, 2021. 

Anne Milgram, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19194 Filed 9–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 21–13] 

Lora L. Thaxton, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On March 24, 2021, the Assistant 

Administrator, Diversion Control 

Division, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (hereinafter, DEA or 

Government), issued an Order to Show 

Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to Lora L. 

Thaxton, M.D. (hereinafter, Respondent) 

of Naples, Florida. OSC, at 1. The OSC 

proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s Certificate of Registration 

No. FT3429227. It alleged that 

Respondent is without ‘‘authority to 

handle controlled substances in Florida, 

the state in which [Respondent is] 

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

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

Specifically, the OSC alleged that the 

Florida Department of Health issued an 

Order of Emergency Restriction of 

License on April 14, 2020. Id. at 1. This 

Order, according to the OSC, suspended 

Respondent’s Florida medical license 

following its findings, inter alia, that a 

medical evaluator from the impaired 

practitioner program for the Florida 

Board of Medicine had determined that 

Respondent was ‘‘unable to practice 

medicine with reasonable skill and 

safety to patients due to alcohol use 

disorder.’’ Id. at 2. According to the 

OSC, Respondent subsequently entered 

into a settlement agreement with the 

Florida Board of Medicine on February 

5, 2021,1 under which Respondent’s 

medical license would remain 

suspended until she demonstrated her 

ability to practice medicine with 

reasonable skill and safety, submitted to 

an evaluation by the impaired 

practitioner program, and petitioned the 

Florida Board of Medicine for 

reinstatement of her medical license. Id. 

The OSC notified Respondent of the 

right to request a hearing on the 

allegations or to submit a written 

statement, while waiving the right to a 

hearing, the procedures for electing each 

option, and the consequences for failing 

to elect either option. Id. at 2–3 (citing 

21 CFR 1301.43). The OSC also notified 

Respondent of the opportunity to 

submit a corrective action plan. Id. at 3 

(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)). 

By letter dated April 29, 2021, 

Respondent timely requested a hearing.2

Request for Hearing (Official 

Notification). The Office of 

Administrative Law Judges put the 

matter on the docket and assigned it to 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 50181 

3On May 7, 2021, the Government filed an 

Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. On May 

10, 2021, the ALJ issued an Order Granting 

Government’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of 

Time, extending the Government’s due date from 

May 17, 2021, to May 18, 2021. 

4Under 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 my 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.usdoj.gov. 

5Within the Florida Department of Health 

License Verification database, ‘‘delinquent’’ means 

‘‘the licensed practitioner who held a clear active 

or clear inactive license, but failed to renew the 

license by the expiration date. The licensed 

practitioner is not authorized to practice in the state 

of Florida.’’ 

Administrative Law Judge Paul E. 

Soeffing (hereinafter, ALJ). On April 29, 

2021, the ALJ issued an Order for 

Evidence of Lack of State Authority and 

Directing the Filing of Evidence 

Regarding the Service of the Order to 

Show Cause, which directed the parties 

to brief the Government’s allegation that 

Respondent lacks state authority to 

handle controlled substances. 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 

(hereinafter, Recommended Decision or 

RD), at 2. The Government timely filed 

its Submission of Evidence and Motion 

for Summary Disposition (hereinafter, 

Government Motion) on May 18, 

2021.3 Id. 

In its motion, the Government argued 

that because Respondent lacks authority 

to handle controlled substances in 

Florida, the state in which she is 

registered with the DEA, the DEA must 

therefore revoke her registration. 

Government Motion, at 5. Respondent 

did not answer the Government Motion. 

RD, at 3. 

On June 4, 2021, the ALJ issued an 

Order Directing Compliance after 

Respondent failed to file her response to 

the Government Motion by the June 3, 

2021 deadline. Order Directing 

Compliance, at 1. The Order Directing 

Compliance directed Respondent to file 

her response by June 11, 2021, and to 

show good cause for failing to meet the 

deadline. Id. at 2. Respondent did not 

answer the Order Directing Compliance. 

RD, at 3. 

On July 6, 2021, the ALJ granted the 

Government Motion, finding that the 

Government had demonstrated that 

Respondent lacked state authority in the 

State of Florida and the ‘‘Respondent 

has failed to counter the Government’s 

evidence or otherwise dispute the 

allegation that she lacks state 

authority.’’ RD, at 5. The ALJ further 

found that ‘‘[a]s a matter of law, the 

facts [of this case] can only result in one 

outcome and a hearing is therefore 

unnecessary to resolve this action.’’ Id. 

at 6. 

The ALJ recommended that 

Respondent’s DEA registration be 

revoked and that any applications to 

renew her registration or any 

applications for any other DEA 

registrations in Florida be denied based 

on her lack of state authority to practice 

medicine or handle controlled 

substances in Florida. RD, at 7. By letter 

dated August 2, 2021, the ALJ certified 

and transmitted the record to me for 

final Agency action. In the letter, the 

ALJ advised that neither party filed 

exceptions. 

I issue this Decision and Order based 

on the entire record before me. 21 CFR 

1301.43(e). I make the following 

findings of fact. 

Findings of Fact 

Respondent’s DEA Registration 

Respondent is the holder of DEA 

Certificate of Registration No. 

FT3429227 at the registered address of 

12079 Wicklow Ln, Naples, FL 34120. 

Government Motion Exhibit 

(hereinafter, GX) A (Controlled 

Substance Registration Certificate). 

Pursuant to this registration, 

Respondent is authorized to dispense 

controlled substances in schedules II 

through V as a practitioner. Id. 

Respondent’s registration expires on 

November 30, 2021. Id. 

The Status of Respondent’s State 

License 

On April 14, 2020, the Florida 

Department of Health issued an Order of 

Emergency Restriction of License 

(hereinafter, Emergency Restriction) that 

restricted Respondent’s license to 

practice medicine in Florida. GX C, at 

1. 

According to the Emergency 

Restriction, in December 2019, a nurse 

at the hospital where Respondent was 

employed reported that Respondent 

appeared impaired while at work. Id. at 

2. Respondent was asked by the hospital 

supervisor to provide a breath sample 

for a breath alcohol test, the result of 

which was positive for alcohol at a 

concentration indicating that she was 

impaired. Id. 

On or about December 6, 2019, 

Respondent self-reported the results of 

the breath alcohol test to the 

Professionals Resource Network 

(hereinafter, PRN), the impaired 

practitioner program for the Florida 

Board of Medicine that monitors the 

evaluation, care, and treatment of 

impaired practitioners licensed by the 

Florida Department of Health. Id. On or 

about January 13, 2020, Respondent was 

evaluated by an expert in addiction 

medicine at PRN’s request. Id. 

According to the Emergency 

Restriction, as of April 14, 2020, 

Respondent had not undergone the PRN 

recommended treatment or engaged in 

PRN monitoring. Id. at 4. 

The Emergency Restriction concluded 

that ‘‘Respondent’s continued 

unrestricted practice as a medical doctor 

constitutes an immediate, serious 

danger to the health, safety or welfare of 

the citizens of the State of Florida’’ and 

ordered that her license be restricted 

until a PRN or a PRN-approved 

evaluator notified the Florida 

Department of Health that Respondent 

could safely resume practicing 

medicine. Id. at 4 and 6. The Emergency 

Restriction also ordered a proceeding 

seeking formal discipline of 

Respondent’s license. Id. at 6. 

On April 24, 2020, the Florida 

Department of Health filed an 

Administrative Complaint before the 

Florida Board of Medicine seeking 

various potential penalties including 

permanent revocation or suspension of 

Respondent’s license. GX D, at 12–14. 

On October 26, 2020, the Florida 

Department of Health and Respondent 

proposed a Settlement Agreement. Id. at 

4 and 11. Under the Settlement 

Agreement, Respondent would pay an 

administrative fine, would reimburse 

the Florida Department of Health for the 

costs incurred in the case, and 

Respondent’s medical license would be 

suspended until she could demonstrate 

to the Florida Medicine Board her 

ability to practice medicine with 

reasonable skill and safety. Id. at 5–7. 

On April 5, 2021, the Florida Board of 

Medicine issued a Final Order that 

approved the Settlement Agreement. Id. 

at 1–2. 

According to Florida’s online records, 

of which I take official notice,4

Respondent’s license is listed as 

‘‘delinquent’’ 5 and Respondent is not 

authorized to practice medicine in 

Florida. Florida Department of Health 

License Verification, https://mqainternet.doh.state.fl.us/MQASearch

Services/HealthCareProviders (last 

visited date of signature of this Order). 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES
50182 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 7, 2021 / Notices 

6Chapter 458 regulates medical practice. 

Accordingly, I find that Respondent is 

not currently licensed to practice 

medicine in Florida, the state in which 

Respondent is registered with the 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 (hereinafter, 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, the 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, M.D., 76 FR 71,371 

(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 

826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh 

Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617 

(1978). 

This 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(f). Because Congress has 

clearly mandated that a practitioner 

possess state authority in order to be 

deemed a practitioner under the CSA, 

the 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 at 71,371–72; 

Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 

39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick A. 

Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993); 

Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920 

(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 

at 27,617. 

According to Florida statute, ‘‘A 

practitioner, in good faith and in the 

course of his or her professional practice 

only, may prescribe, administer, 

dispense, mix, or otherwise prepare a 

controlled substance.’’ Fla. Stat. 

§ 893.05(1)(a) (2021). Further, a 

‘‘practitioner’’ as defined by Florida 

statute includes ‘‘a physician licensed 

under chapter 458.’’ 6 Id. at § 893.02(23). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Respondent currently 

lacks authority to practice medicine in 

Florida. As already discussed, a 

physician must be a licensed 

practitioner to dispense a controlled 

substance in Florida. Thus, because 

Respondent lacks authority to practice 

medicine in Florida and, therefore, is 

not authorized to handle controlled 

substances in Florida, Respondent is not 

eligible to maintain a DEA registration. 

Accordingly, I 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. FT3429227 issued to 

Lora L. Thaxton, M.D. Further, pursuant 

to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority 

vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I 

hereby deny any pending application of 

Lora L. Thaxton to renew or modify this 

registration, as well as any other 

pending application of Lora L. Thaxton 

for additional registration in Florida. 

This Order is effective October 7, 2021. 

Anne Milgram, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19203 Filed 9–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

U.S. Marshals Service 

[OMB Number 1105–0106] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed eCollection 

eComments Requested;Extension 

Without Change of a Currently 

Approved Collection; Comments 

Requested: Form CSO–005, 

Preliminary Background Check Form 

AGENCY: U.S. Marshals Service, 

Department of Justice. 

ACTION: 30-day notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(DOJ), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), 

will submit the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for an additional 30 

days until October 7, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written 

comments and suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

the proposed collection of information 

are encouraged. Your comments should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Evaluate whether and if so how the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected can be 

enhanced; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection: 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Extension without change of a currently 

approved collection. 

(2) The Title of the Form/Collection: 

Form CSO–005, Preliminary 

Background Check Form. 

(3) The agency form number, if any, 

and the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

Form number: Form CSO–005. 

Component: U.S. Marshals Service, 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: 

Primary: Court Security Officers/ 

Special Security Officer (CSO/SSO) 

Applicants. 

Other: [None]. 

Abstract: The CSO–005 Preliminary 

Background Check Form is used to 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with NOTICES