Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Notices 15587

Accordingly, the Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823

and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,

hereby orders that the application,

executed by Henry M. Goshen, M.D., on

February 9, 1993, for a DEA Certificate

of Registration as a practitioner, be, and

it hereby is, denied. This order is

effective April 24, 1995.

Dated: March 20, 1995.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–7316 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

[Docket No. 93–60]

James C. Graham, M.D.; Denial of

Application

On June 7, 1993, the Deputy Assistant

Administrator, Office of Division

Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), directed an

Order to Show Cause to James C.

Graham, M.D. (Respondent), proposing

to deny his pending application for

registration as a practitioner under 21

U.S.C. 823(f). The Order to Show Cause

alleged that Respondent’s registration

would be inconsistent with the public

interest.

Respondent, through counsel,

requested a hearing on the issues raised

in the Order to Show Cause. The matter

was docketed before Administrative

Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner.

Following prehearing procedures, a

hearing was held in Fort Wayne,

Indiana, on January 26, 1994.

On October 11, 1994, Judge Bittner

issued her opinion and recommended

ruling, findings of fact, conclusions of

law, and decision in which she

recommended that the Respondent’s

application for registration be denied.

Neither party filed exceptions to this

opinion, and on November 14, 1994, the

administrative law judge transmitted the

record of the proceedings to the Deputy

Administrator.

The Deputy Administrator has

considered the record in its entirety

and, pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, enters

his final order in this matter, based on

findings of fact and conclusions of law

as hereinafter set forth.

The administrative law judge found

that Respondent received a medical

degree from Indiana University, and

practiced medicine in Fort Wayne

continuously from 1958 to 1983.

Respondent stated that he sometimes

saw as many as one hundred patients a

day, often worked up to 18 hours a day,

performed multiple surgeries and

delivered two to three hundred babies

each year. Respondent also testified that

many of his patients were on welfare or

Medicaid, and that he treated about

thirty percent of his patients without

compensation. Respondent stated that

because of a busy schedule he was

unable to keep appropriate

documentation on all of his patients.

Judge Bittner found that in 1982, the

Allen County Police Department

received information that Respondent

was writing prescriptions in exchange

for merchandise. Subsequently, a

cooperating individual and an

undercover Indiana State police officer

arranged meetings with Respondent in a

local restaurant.

Judge Bittner found that in October

through December 1982, Respondent

provided the cooperating individual

several prescriptions for a Schedule IV

controlled substance in exchange for

liquor and meat, and on one occasion

issuing the prescription to the

confidential informant in another’s

name. Subsequently, in November and

December 1982, Respondent gave the

undercover officer several prescriptions

for Schedule III and IV controlled

substances in exchange for meat and

liquor. In January and February 1983,

both undercover operatives were able to

continue to acquire prescriptions for

controlled substances, including a

Schedule II narcotic controlled

substance, from Respondent in

exchange for merchandise. At the

hearing, the undercover officer testified

that Respondent never performed any

physical examination during any visit.

The administrative law judge found

that on November 21, 1983, Respondent

was convicted in the United States

District Court for the Northern District

of Indiana of fourteen felony counts of

dispensing controlled substances not in

the course of professional practice and

not for a medical purpose. Respondent

was sentenced to three years

imprisonment suspended to thirty days

in jail and three years probation. As a

result of this conviction, the Medical

Licensing Board of Indiana summarily

suspended Respondent’s medical

license. After a hearing in April 1984,

that Board reinstated Respondent’s

medical license upon probationary

terms.

Judge Bittner found that after

Respondent had submitted his current

pending application for DEA

registration in 1991, he told DEA

investigators that he had been set up

and had never written any prescriptions

for controlled substances that were

illegitimate.

Respondent testified that since his

State medical license were restored he

has never been accused of violating any

rules or regulations. He stated that he

has been limited to a part-time medical

practice because of illness.

During his testimony, Respondent

admitted meeting both undercover

operatives. However, he denied that he

ever gave either one a prescription in

exchange for meat or liquor. Respondent

testified that any prescription he may

have given these individuals was for a

legitimate medical purpose.

Respondent submitted documentary

evidence on his behalf and several

character witnesses also testified. The

administrative law judge found that one

psychiatrist reported that Respondent’s

judgment had been impaired at the time

of these incidents, and another had

found that an automobile accident had

resulted in a brain injury to Respondent

that had caused deficits in judgment.

Both physicians reported this condition

as now resolved. Other health

professionals offered testimony that

Respondent was a competent,

compassionate, well qualified physician

who posed no threat to the community.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), the

Deputy Administrator may deny an

application for a DEA Certificate of

Registration if he determines that the

registration would be inconsistent with

the public interest.

Section 823(f) sets forth the following

factors to be considered in determining

the public interest:

(1) The recommendation of the

appropriate State licensing board or

professional disciplinary authority.

(2) The applicant’s experience in

dispensing, or conducting research with

respect to controlled substances.

(3) The applicant’s conviction record

under Federal or State laws relating to

the manufacture, distribution, or

dispensing of controlled substances.

(4) Compliance with applicable State,

Federal, or local laws relating to

controlled substances.

(5) Such other conduct which may

threaten the public health and safety.

It is well established that these factors

are to be considered in the disjunctive,

i.e., the Deputy Administrator may

properly rely on any one or a

combination of factors, and give each

factor the weight he deems appropriate.

Henry J. Schwarz, Jr., M.D., 54 FR 16422

(1989).

Of the stated factors, the

administrative law judge found that all

five factors were relevant. Judge Bittner

determined that the record established

that Respondent blatantly and

unabashedly abused his privilege as a

registrant by issuing controlled

substance prescriptions in return for his

own gain in the form of goods and
15588 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Notices

merchandise. The administrative law

judge considered the fact that this

conduct occurred more than ten years

before, but found that Respondent had

not acknowledged wrongdoing or

expressed any remorse for his

misconduct. Judge Bittner concluded

that Respondent is unable or unwilling

to discharge the responsibilities

inherent in a DEA registration, and

recommended that his application for

registration be denied.

The Deputy Administrator adopts the

opinion and recommended ruling,

findings of fact, conclusions of law and

decision of the administrative law judge

in its entirety. Based on the foregoing,

the Deputy Administrator concludes

that Respondent’s registration is

inconsistent with the public interest.

Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator

of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823

and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,

hereby orders that the application of

James C. Graham, M.D., be and it hereby

is, denied. This order is effective March

24, 1995.

Dated: March 20, 1995.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–7317 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Charles L. Sweet, M.D.; Revocation of

Registration

On November 7, 1994, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Charles L. Sweet,

M.D., of 219 Broadway, PO. Box 518,

Fullerton, Nebraska. The Order to Show

Cause proposed to revoke Dr. Sweet’s

DEA Certificate of Registration,

BS2051061, under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3),

and deny any pending applications for

renewal of such registration under 21

U.S.C. 823(f).

The Order to Show Cause was served

on Dr. Sweet on November 14, 1994.

More than thirty days have passed since

the Order to Show Cause was received

by Dr. Sweet. The Drug Enforcement

Administration has received no

response from Dr. Sweet or anyone

purporting to represent him.

Pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.54(d), the

Deputy Administrator finds that Dr.

Sweet has waived his opportunity for a

hearing. Accordingly, under the

provisions of 21 CFR 1301.54(e) and

1301.57, the Deputy Administrator

enters his final order in this matter

without a hearing and based on the

investigative file.

The Deputy Administrator finds that

in 1975, Dr. Sweet’s DEA Certificates of

Registration, AS4344951 and

AS4355168 were retired based on his

failure to renew them. As a result of his

failure to renew his DEA registrations,

Dr. Sweet’s Nebraska State controlled

substance registration was revoked on

June 5, 1989. On June 29, 1989, DEA

sent Dr. Sweet a letter of admonition

advising him that he could not handle

controlled substances until he obtained

a DEA registration.

Dr. Sweet subsequently reapplied for

DEA and Nebraska controlled substance

registrations, and in October 1989, Dr.

Sweet was issued DEA Certificate of

Registration, BS2051061, as well as a

Nebraska controlled substance

registration. However, an investigation

by the Nebraska Department of Health,

Bureau of Examining Boards revealed

that between June and October 1989, Dr.

Sweet wrote numerous prescriptions for

controlled substances when he did not

possess either a DEA registration and/or

a Nebraska controlled substance

registration. As a result, on November 8,

1991, Dr. Sweet’s Nebraska controlled

substance registration was revoked. In

addition, effective October 15, 1992, Dr.

Sweet’s state license to practice

medicine and surgery was also revoked.

The Deputy Administrator finds that

as of November 8, 1991, Dr. Sweet’s

license to handle controlled substances

in the State of Nebraska was revoked,

and as a result, he is unable to handle

controlled substances. The Drug

Enforcement Administration cannot

register or maintain the registration of a

practitioner who is not duly authorized

to handle controlled substances in the

state in which he conducts his business.

21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3).

This prerequisite has been consistently

upheld. See James H. Nickens, M.D., 57

FR 59847 (1992); Elliott Monroe, M.D.,

57 FR 23246 (1992); Bobby Watts, M.D.,

53 FR 11919 (1988).

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that

Dr. Sweet’s DEA Certificate of

Registration must be revoked.

Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator

of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823

and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,

hereby orders that DEA Certificate of

Registration, BS2051061, previously

issued to Charles L. Sweet, M.D., be,

and it hereby is, revoked and that any

pending applications for renewal of

such registration be, and they hereby

are, denied. This order is effective April

24, 1995.

Dated: March 20, 1995.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–7318 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Office of Justice Programs

[OJP No. 1044 and ZRIN 1121–ZA08]

1995–96 National Institute of Justice

Research Plan

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, National

Institute of Justice.

ACTION: Notice of the availability of the

1995–96 National Institute of Justice

Research Plan.

SUMMARY: The National Institute of

Justice (NIJ) is publishing this Notice of

the availability of its 1995–96 National

Institute of Justice Research Plan.

DATES: The deadlines for receipt of

proposals are Thursday, June 15, 1995;

Friday, December 15, 1995; Monday,

June 17, 1996; and Monday, December

16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to the National Institute of

Justice, 633 Indiana Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20531.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeremy Travis, Director, National

Institute of Justice, 633 Indiana Avenue

NW., Washington, DC 20531. To obtain

copies of the 1995–96 National Institute

of Justice Research Plan, call the

National Criminal Justice Reference

Service (NCJRS), 1–800–851–3420, Box

6000, Rockville, MD 20850. The Plan is

also available electronically via the

National Criminal Justice Reference

Service Bulletin Board (NCJRS*BBS). If

you have Internet access; telnet to

ncjrsbbs.aspensys.com or gopher to

ncjrs.aspensys.com 71. Users without

Internet access may direct dial to (301)

738–8895. Modems should be set at

9600 Baud and N–8–1. The NIJ Research

Plan is listed under the ‘‘National

Institute of Justice Information’’ menu.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following supplementary information is

provided:

Authority

This action is authorized under the

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets

Act of 1968, §§ 201–03, as amended, 42

U.S.C. §§ 3721–23 (1988).

Background

The 1995–96 National Institute of

Justice Research Plan outlines the NIJ

research and evaluation agenda for

1995, provides descriptions of program