41354 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2022 / Notices 

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. 

1The OSC also alleged that Registrant’s 

registration should be revoked because Registrant 

has ‘‘committed such acts as would render [his] 

registration inconsistent with the public interest, as 

that term is defined under the Controlled 

Substances Act,’’ based on Registrant’s lack of 

compliance with a DEA Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA). OSC, at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) 

and 824(a)(4)). However, in its Request for Final 

Agency Action (RFAA) submitted to this Office on 

June 22, 2022, the Government noted that while it 

does not concede that Registrant complied with the 

MOA, Registrant’s lack of state authority to handle 

controlled substances is ‘‘case dispositive and the 

Government does not seek a Final Order on the 

public interest allegations.’’ RFAA, at n.2. 

2By letter dated July 12, 2021, Registrant 

submitted a written statement in response to the 

OSC in which he waived his right to a hearing. 

RFAA, Exhibit (hereinafter, RFAAX) B, at 1–2. As 

the Government seeks Final Agency Action solely 

on the ground that Registrant lacks state authority 

to handle controlled substances, the Agency will 

not consider Registrant’s explanation in response to 

the public interest allegations at this time. See id. 

Registrant also argues that his DEA registration 

should not be revoked for lack of state authority 

because he still has a North Carolina medical 

license in ‘‘inactive status.’’ Id. at 2. 

3On April 13, 2020, an Administrative Law Judge 

of the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings 

issued a Proposed Decision recommending that 

Registrant’s Maryland Controlled Dangerous 

Substances (CDS) license be revoked. RFAAX C–2, 

at 1, 21. On June 25, 2020, the Designee of the 

Maryland Secretary of Health issued a Final 

Decision and Order adopting the Proposed Decision 

in full and revoking Registrant’s Maryland CDS 

license. RFAAX C–3, at 1–4. 

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, 

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.usdoj.gov. 

According to Colorado statute, 

‘‘[e]very person who manufactures, 

distributes, or dispenses any controlled 

substance within this state . . . shall 

obtain . . . a registration, issued by the 

respective licensing board . . . . For 

purposes of this section and this article 

[ ], ‘registration’ or ‘registered’ means 

. . . the licensing of physicians by the 

Colorado medical board . . . .’’ Colo. 

Rev. Stat. § 18–18–302(1) (2022). Here, 

the undisputed evidence in the record is 

that Registrant’s Colorado medical 

license was suspended by the Colorado 

Medical Board. As such, Registrant is 

not authorized to dispense controlled 

substances in Colorado and thus 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. AM2605561 issued 

to Donald J. Murphy, 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 Donald J. Murphy, M.D. 

to renew or modify this registration, as 

well as any other pending application of 

Donald J. Murphy, M.D. for additional 

registration in Colorado. 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. 2022–14839 Filed 7–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Alphonsus Okoli, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On June 7, 2021, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration 

(hereinafter, DEA or Government), 

issued an Order to Show Cause 

(hereinafter, OSC) to Alphonsus Okoli, 

M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant). OSC, at 1 

and 4. The OSC proposed the revocation 

of Registrant’s Certificate of Registration 

No. BO4917780 at the registered address 

of 7525 Greenway Center Drive, Suite 

110, Greenbelt, Maryland 20770. Id. at 

1. The OSC alleged that Registrant’s 

registration should be revoked because 

Registrant is ‘‘without authority to 

handle controlled substances in 

Maryland, the state in which [he is] 

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

U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).1

The Agency makes the following 

findings of fact based on the 

uncontroverted evidence submitted by 

the Government in its Request for Final 

Agency Action (RFAA).2

Findings of Fact 

On March 23, 2021,3 Registrant and 

the Maryland State Board of Physicians 

(hereinafter, the Board) entered into a 

Consent Order suspending Registrant’s 

Maryland medical license and 

permanently prohibiting him from 

prescribing and dispensing Controlled 

Dangerous Substances (hereinafter, 

CDS). See RFAAX C–4 (Consent Order), 

at 12–18. On September 29, 2021, the 

Board issued an Order Terminating 

Suspension and Imposing Probation that 

ended the suspension of Registrant’s 

Maryland medical license, but 

maintained that, as had been ordered in 

Registrant’s Consent Order with the 

Board, Registrant was permanently 

prohibited from prescribing and 

dispensing all controlled dangerous 

substances. RFAAX C–5, at 1–4. 

According to Maryland’s online 

records, of which the Agency takes 

official notice, Registrant’s Maryland 

CDS license is still revoked.4 Maryland 

Department of Health CDS Search, 

https://health.maryland.gov/ocsa/ 

pages/cdssearch.aspx (last visited date 

of signature of this Order). Accordingly, 

the Agency finds that Registrant is not 

currently licensed to dispense 

controlled dangerous substances in 

Maryland, 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 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
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