14004 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices

Act on November 14, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg.

56533).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 95–6286 Filed 3–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993—Pine Oil Joint Venture

Notice is hereby given that, on

December 28, 1994, pursuant to Section

6(a) of the National Cooperative

Research and Production Act of 1993 15

U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), SCM

Glidco Organics has filed written

notifications simultaneously with the

Attorney General and the Federal Trade

Commission disclosing changes in its

membership. The notifications were

filed for the purpose of extending the

Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages

under specified circumstances.

Specifically, the following members

have withdrawn their membership with

SCM Glidco Orgnaics: Sistesis quimica

S.A. de C.V. and Johnson Chemical Co.,

Inc.

No other changes have been made in

either the membership or planned

activity of the joint venture.

Membership in this joint venture

remains open, and SCM Glidco Organics

intends to file additional written

notification disclosing all changes in

membership.

On January 5, 1987, American

Cyanamid Company filed its original

notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of

the Act. The Department of Justice

published a notice in the Federal

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the

Act on February 5, 1987, 52 F. R. 37190.

The last notification was filed with the

Department on August 13, 1993. A

notice was published in the Federal

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the

Act on September 20, 1993, 58 F.R.

51103.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 95–6282 Filed 3–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993—X Consortium, Inc.

Notice is hereby given that, on

December 8, 1994, pursuant to Section

6(a) of the National Cooperative

Research and Production Act of 1993,

15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), X

Consortium, Inc. (the ‘‘Corporation’’)

has filed written notification

simultaneously with the Attorney

General and the Federal Trade

Commission disclosing changes in its

membership. The notifications were

filed for the purpose of extending the

Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages

under specified circumstances.

Specifically, the following have become

members of the Corporation: Institut

National de Recherche en Informatique

et en Automatique, Le Chesnay,

FRANCE; and KL Group, Inc., Toronto,

CANADA.

No other changes have been made in

either membership or planned activity

of the group research project.

Membership in this group research

project remains open, and the

Corporation intends to file additional

written notifications disclosing all

changes in membership.

On September 15, 1993, the

Corporation filed its original

notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of

the Act. The Department of Justice

published a notice in the Federal

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the

Act on November 10, 1993 (58 FR

59737). The last notification was filed

with the Department on June 14, 1994.

A notice was published in the Federal

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the

Act on November 7, 1994 (59 FR 55490).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 95–6283 Filed 3–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 93–52]

Robert A. Leslie, M.D.; Denial of

Application

On May 13, 1993, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator (then-Director),

Office of Diversion Control, Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA),

issued an Order to Show Cause to

Robert A. Leslie, M.D., of Los Angeles,

California, proposing to deny his

application for registration as a

practitioner. The Order to Show Cause

alleged that the Respondent’s

registration would be inconsistent with

the public interest as that term is used

in 21 U.S.C. 823(f).

Respondent, acting pro se, requested

a hearing on the issues raised by the

Order to Show Cause, and the matter

was placed on the docket of

Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen

Bittner. Following prehearing

procedures, a hearing was held in Los

Angeles, California, on December 8 and

9, 1993. On July 27, 1994, in her

opinion and recommended ruling,

findings of fact, conclusions of law and

decision, the administrative law judge

recommended that Respondent’s

application for DEA registration be

denied. In a footnote of her

recommended decision, the

administrative law judge referenced

specific documents that were submitted

by Respondent after the administrative

hearing. The administrative law judge

recommended that the Deputy

Administrator not consider these

submissions, since most of the

documents pertained to matters

previously litigated and conclusively

decided in a previous criminal action,

and therefore, consideration of them

was barred by the doctrine of res

judicata. No exceptions were filed by

either party.

On August 16, 1994, Respondent filed

a Petition for Reconsideration of the

administrative law judge’s decision

recommending denial of his application

for DEA registration. On August 17,

1994, the administrative law judge

denied this petition as lacking in merit.

On August 30, 1994, the

administrative law judge transmitted the

record to the Deputy Administrator. The

Deputy Administrator has carefully

considered the entire record in this

matter and pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67,

hereby issues his final order in this

matter based upon findings of fact and

conclusions of law as hereinafter set

forth. The Deputy Administrator

concurs with Judge Bittner’s

recommendation not to consider

specific post hearing submissions of the

Respondent. Accordingly, these

submissions were not considered in

rendering this decision.

The administrative law judge found

that Respondent graduated from

medical school in 1955, became

licensed as a physician in 1958, and

practiced medicine in Los Angeles

during the period at issue in this case.

On April 1, 1986, a complaint was filed

in the Municipal Court of Long Beach,

California, charging Respondent with

seventeen misdemeanor counts, sixteen

of which related to the unlawful

handling of controlled substances.

Following a jury trial, on October 9,

1986, Respondent was found guilty on

eight counts of unlawfully prescribing,

administering, furnishing or dispensing

controlled substances between July 1985

and January 1986. Respondent’s

convictions were affirmed on appeal by

the Appellate Department of the

Superior Court, State of California, in a

Memorandum Judgement issued on May

18, 1988.

Based on his criminal convictions, on

August 17, 1988, the California Board of