Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2022 / Notices 41355 

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(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. 

6The Agency finds that Registrant’s inactive 

North Carolina medical license has no bearing on 

the issue in this case, which is whether Registrant 

has authority to handle controlled substances in the 

Maryland, the state of his DEA registration. 

1 In his Reply, Respondent argued that his DEA 

registration should not be revoked because, 

although his Illinois medical license was 

suspended, no specific action had been taken 

against his Illinois controlled substance license and 

there have been no allegations against him 

regarding his controlled substance prescribing. 

Respondent’s Reply, at 2. Further, Respondent 

argued that his DEA registration should not be 

revoked because he is appealing the underlying 

action that resulted in the suspension of his Illinois 

medical license. Id. at 2–4. Finally, Respondent 

argued that the plain language of 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) 

does not mandate revocation of a DEA registration 

upon suspension of a practitioner’s state medical 

license, but rather, implies that revocation is 

discretionary. Id. at 4–5. In support of his final 

argument, Respondent asserts that the Government 

has not put forth any argument indicating why his 

DEA registration must be revoked. Id. 

2By letter dated June 28, 2022, the Chief ALJ 

certified and transmitted the record to the Agency 

for final agency action, advising that neither party 

filed exceptions. 

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 

Continued 

826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh 

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

(1978).5

According to Maryland statute, ‘‘a 

person shall be registered by the 

Department before the person 

manufactures, distributes, or dispenses 

a controlled dangerous substance in the 

State or transports a controlled 

dangerous substance into the State.’’ 

Md. Code. Ann., Crim. Law § 5– 

301(a)(1) (West 2022). Maryland law 

further defines ‘‘dispense’’ to mean ‘‘to 

deliver to the ultimate user or the 

human research subject by or in 

accordance with the lawful order of an 

authorized provider’’ and states that the 

term includes ‘‘to prescribe, administer, 

package, label, or compound a 

substance for delivery.’’ Id. at § 5– 

101(I)(1)–(2). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant’s CDS license 

was revoked. As already discussed, a 

practitioner must hold a valid 

controlled substance license to dispense 

a controlled substance in Maryland.6

Thus, Registrant is not eligible to 

maintain a DEA registration in 

Maryland and 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. BO4917780 issued to 

Alphonsus Okoli, 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 

applications of Alphonsus Okoli, M.D. 

to renew or modify this registration, as 

well as any other pending application of 

Alphonsus Okoli, M.D. for additional 

registration in Maryland. This Order is 

effective August 11, 2022. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on July 6, 2022, 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. 2022–14832 Filed 7–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 22–23] 

Bhanoo Sharma, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On April 4, 2022, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration 

(hereinafter, DEA or Government), 

issued an Order to Show Cause 

(hereinafter, OSC) to Bhanoo Sharma, 

M.D. (hereinafter, Respondent). OSC, at 

1 and 3. The OSC proposed the 

revocation of Respondent’s Certificate of 

Registration No. FS3031034 at the 

registered address of 17577 Kedzie 

Avenue, Suite 108, Hazel Crest, Illinois 

60429. Id. at 1. The OSC alleged that 

Respondent’s registration should be 

revoked because Respondent is 

‘‘without authority to handle controlled 

substances in the State of Illinois, the 

state in which [he is] registered with 

DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(3)). 

By letter dated May 4, 2022, 

Respondent requested a hearing. On 

May 4, 2022, Chief Administrative Law 

Judge John J. Mulrooney, II (hereinafter, 

the Chief ALJ) issued an Order Directing 

the Filing of Government Evidence 

Regarding Its Lack of State Authority 

Allegation and Briefing Schedule. On 

May 11, 2022, the Government filed its 

Submission of Evidence and Motion for 

Summary Disposition (hereinafter, 

Motion for Summary Disposition). On 

May 20, 2022, Respondent filed his 

Reply in Opposition to the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition (hereinafter, Respondent’s 

Reply).1

On June 1, 2022, the Chief ALJ 

granted the Government’s Motion for 

Summary Disposition and 

recommended the revocation of 

Respondent’s DEA registration, finding 

that because Respondent lacks state 

authority to handle controlled 

substances, ‘‘there is no other fact of 

consequence for [the] tribunal to decide 

in order to determine whether or not 

[Respondent] is entitled to hold a [DEA 

registration].’’ 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 6.2

The Agency issues this Decision and 

Order based on the entire record before 

it, 21 CFR 1301.43(e), and makes the 

following findings of fact. 

Findings of Fact 

On February 19, 2021, the Illinois 

Department of Financial and 

Professional Regulation issued an Order 

suspending Respondent’s Illinois 

medical license. Government Exhibit 3, 

at 1–2. According to Illinois online 

records, of which the Agency takes 

official notice, Respondent’s state 

medical license is still suspended.3


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
41356 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2022 / Notices 

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 finding 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. 

4As such, the Agency finds Respondent’s 

arguments regarding the permissive nature of 21 

U.S.C. 824(a)(3) to be unavailing. See also John B. 

Freitas, D.O., 74 FR 17,524, 17,525 (2009) (‘‘the CSA 

requires the revocation of a registration issued to a 

practitioner who lacks [such] authority.’’). 

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(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. 

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 at 71,371 

(quoting Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12,847, 12,848 

(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 18,273, 18,274 (2007); Wingfield 

Drugs, 52 FR 27,070, 27,071 (1987). Thus, it is of 

no consequence that the underlying action in this 

case is being appealed. What is consequential is the 

Agency’s finding that Respondent is no longer 

currently authorized to dispense controlled 

substances in Illinois, the state in which he is 

registered with the DEA. 

Further, it is of no consequence the specific 

manner in which Respondent’s state authority was 

lost. See, e.g., Alex E. Torres, M.D., 87 FR 3,352 

(2022) (voluntary surrender of medical license); 

Humberto A. Florian, M.D., 86 FR 52,203 (2021) 

(state medical license revoked); Javaid A. Perwaiz, 

M.D., 86 FR 20,732 (2021) (state medical license 

expired). Thus, Respondent’s argument that his 

DEA registration should not be revoked because no 

specific action was taken against his Illinois 

controlled substance license is without merit. 

Additionally, it is of no consequence that there 

have been no allegations against Respondent 

regarding his controlled substance prescribing. See, 

e.g., Kirk A. Hopkins, M.D., 87 FR 21,154 (2022) 

(allegations of wire fraud); Florian, 86 FR 52,203 

(allegations of negligence in medical practice). Once 

again, what is consequential is the Agency’s finding 

that Respondent is no longer currently authorized 

to dispense controlled substances in Illinois, the 

state in which he is registered with the DEA. 

6The Illinois Controlled Substances Act also 

authorizes the Department of Financial and 

Professional Regulation to discipline a practitioner 

holding a controlled substance license, stating that 

‘‘[a] registration under Section 303 to manufacture, 

distribute, or dispense a controlled substance . . . 

may be denied, refused renewal, suspended, or 

revoked by the Department of Financial and 

Professional Regulation.’’ Id. at 570/304(a). 

Illinois Department of Financial and 

Professional Regulation, License 

Lookup, https://onlinedfpr.micropact.com/lookup/ 

licenselookup.aspx (last visited date of 

signature of this Order). Further, Illinois 

online records list the status of 

Respondent’s state controlled substance 

license as ‘‘inoperative.’’ Id. 

Accordingly, the Agency finds that 

Respondent is not currently licensed to 

engage in the practice of medicine and 

his controlled substances license is 

inoperative in Illinois, the state in 

which he 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 4 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).5

Pursuant to the Illinois Controlled 

Substances Act, a ‘‘practitioner’’ means 

‘‘a physician licensed to practice 

medicine in all its branches . . . or 

other person licensed, registered, or 

otherwise lawfully permitted by the 

United States or this State to distribute, 

dispense, conduct research with respect 

to, administer or use in teaching or 

chemical analysis, a controlled 

substance in the course of professional 

practice or research.’’ 720 Ill. Comp. 

Stat. Ann. 570/102(kk) (West 2022). 

Further, the Illinois Controlled 

Substances Act requires that ‘‘[e]very 

person who manufactures, distributes, 

or dispenses any controlled substances 

. . . must obtain a registration issued by 

the Department of Financial and 

Professional Regulation in accordance 

with its rules.’’ Id. at 570/302(a).6

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Respondent currently 

lacks authority to handle controlled 

substances in Illinois as his Illinois 

medical license is suspended and his 

Illinois controlled substance license is 

inoperative. As already discussed, a 

practitioner must hold a valid 

controlled substance license to dispense 

a controlled substance in Illinois. Thus, 

Respondent is not eligible to maintain a 

DEA registration in Illinois. 

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. FS3031034 issued to 

Bhanoo Sharma, 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 applications 

of Bhanoo Sharma, M.D. to renew or 

modify this registration, as well as any 

other pending application of Bhanoo 

Sharma, M.D. for additional registration 

in Illinois. This Order is effective 

August 11, 2022. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on July 6, 2022, 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. 2022–14841 Filed 7–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1