Net Wholesale; Revocation of Registration, 24626-24627 [05-9282]
Download as PDF
24626
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 10, 2005 / Notices
Louisiana, notifying him of an
opportunity to show cause as to why
DEA should not revoke his DEA
Certificate of Registration BM7570636
under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and deny any
pending applications for renewal or
modification of that registration
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f). As a basis
for revocation, the Order to Show Cause
alleged that Dr. Mulhearn is not
currently authorized to practice
medicine or handle controlled
substances in Louisiana, his state of
registration and practice. The Order to
Show Cause also notified Dr. Mulhearn
that should no request for a hearing be
filed within 30 days, his hearing right
would be deemed waived.
The Order to Show Cause was sent by
certified mail to Dr. Mulhearn at his
registered address at 1207 Royal
Avenue, Monroe, Louisiana 71201.
However, that letter was unclaimed. It
was then forwarded by the United States
Postal Service to 91 Sidney Street, Apt.
315, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139–
4286, an address Dr. Mulhearn
apparently provided postal authorities
as a forwarding address. However, the
forwarded letter was also unclaimed
and postal authorities returned it to
DEA. Additional efforts by DEA
investigators to locate Dr. Mulhearn’s
whereabouts have also been
unsuccessful. DEA has not received a
request for hearing or any other reply
from Dr. Mulhearn or anyone purporting
to represent him in this matter.
Therefore, the Deputy Administrator
of DEA, finding that: (1) Thirty days
having passed since the attempted
deliveries of the Order to Show Cause
to the registrant’s address of record and
his forwarding address; (2) reasonable
and good faith efforts to locate him have
been unsuccessful; and (3) no request
for hearing having been received,
concludes that Dr. Mulhearn is deemed
to have waived his hearing right. See
James E. Thomas, M.D., 70 FR 3,564
(2005); Steven A. Barnes, M.D., 69 FR
51,474 (2004); David W. Linder, 67 FR
12,579 (2002). After considering
material from the investigative file in
this matter, the Deputy Administrator
now enters her final order without a
hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(d)
and (e) and 1301.46.
The Deputy Administrator finds Dr.
Mulhearn currently possesses DEA
Certificate of Registration BM7570636,
as a practitioner, authorized to handle
Schedule V controlled substances. The
Deputy Administrator further finds that
on November 29, 2003, the Louisiana
State Board of Medical Examiners
(Louisiana Board) issued an Order
revoking Dr. Mulhearn’s license to
practice medicine in Louisiana. The
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:17 May 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
revocation was based upon the Board’s
findings that Dr. Mulhearn committed
professional misconduct due to personal
substance abuse, failed to adhere to the
conditions of a previous suspension and
treatment program and was ‘‘unable to
practice medicine with reasonable skill
and safety to patients because of mental
illness or deficiency, and/or excessive
use or abuse of drugs, including
alcohol.’’
The investigative file contains no
evidence the Louisiana Board’s Order
has been stayed, modified or terminated
or that Dr. Mulhearn’s medical license
has been reinstated. Therefore, the
Deputy Administrator finds Dr.
Mulhearn is not currently authorized to
practice medicine in the State of
Louisiana. As a result, it is reasonable
to infer he is also without authorization
to handle controlled substances in that
state.
DEA does not have statutory authority
under the Controlled Substances Act to
issue or maintain a registration if the
applicant or registrant is without state
authority to handle controlled
substances in the state in which he
conducts business. See 21 U.S.C.
802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3). This
prerequisite has been consistently
upheld. See Stephen J. Graham, M.D.,
69 FR 11,661 (2004); Dominick A. Ricci,
M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993); Bobby Watts,
M.D., 53 FR 11,919 (1988).
Here, it is clear Dr. Mulhearn’s
medical license has been revoked and
he is not currently licensed to handle
controlled substances in Louisiana,
where he is registered with DEA.
Therefore, he is not entitled to a DEA
registration in that state.
Accordingly, the Deputy
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the
authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823
and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,
hereby orders that DEA Certificate of
Registration BM7570636, issued to
Thomas J. Mulhearn, III, M.D., be, and
it hereby is, revoked. The Deputy
Administrator further orders that any
pending applications for renewal of
such registration be, and they hereby
are, denied. This order is effective June
9, 2005.
Dated: May 2, 2005.
Michele M. Leonart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–9245 Filed 5–9–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–M
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Net Wholesale; Revocation of
Registration
On September 16, 2004, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to Net Wholesale (Net)
proposing to revoke its DEA Certificate
of Registration 002918NOY as a
distributor of List I chemicals pursuant
to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4), on the ground
that Net’s continued registration would
be inconsistent with the public interest,
as that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(h).
The order also notified Net that should
no request for a hearing be filed within
30 days, its hearing right would be
deemed waived.
According to the DEA investigative
file, the Order to Show Cause was sent
by certified mail to Net at its registered
location at 3415 9th Avenue, Huntsville,
Alabama 35805. That correspondence
was returned to DEA as ‘‘Unclaimed,’’
indicating the addressee had twice
failed to respond to postal service
notices to pick up the letter. On
November 4, 2004, the Order to Show
Cause was re-mailed to Net at its
registered address by regular first class
mail. That correspondence has not been
returned to DEA and is presumed to
have been received. DEA has not
received a request for a hearing or any
other reply from Net or anyone
purporting to represent the company in
this matter.
Therefore, the Deputy Administrator
of DEA, finding that (1) thirty days have
passed since delivery of the Order to
Show Cause, and (2) no request for a
hearing having been received, concludes
that Net has waived its hearing right.
See Aqui Enterprises, 67 FR 12,576
(2002). After considering relevant
material from the investigative file, the
Deputy Administrator now enters her
final order without a hearing pursuant
to 21 CFR 1309.53(c) and (d) and
1316.67. The Deputy Administrator
finds as follows.
List I chemicals are those that may be
used in the manufacture of a controlled
substance in violation of the Controlled
Substances Act. 21 U.S.C. 802(34); 21
CFR 1310.02(a). Pseudoephedrine and
ephedrine are List I chemicals
commonly used to illegally manufacture
methamphetamine, a Schedule II
controlled substance.
Phenhylpropanolamine, also a List I
chemical, is presently a legitimately
manufactured and distributed product
used to provide relief of the symptoms
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 10, 2005 / Notices
resulting from irritation of the sinus,
nasal and upper respiratory tract tissues,
and is also used for weight control.
Phenylpropanolamine is also a
precursor chemical used in the illicit
manufacture of methamphetamine and
amphetamine.
As noted in previous DEA final
orders, methamphetamine is an
extremely potent central nervous system
stimulant and its abuse is a persistent
and growing problem in the United
States. See e.g., Direct Wholesale, 69 FR
11,654 (2004); Branex, Inc., 69 FR 8,682
(2004); Yemen Wholesale Tobacco and
Candy Supply, Inc., 67 FR 9,997 (2002);
Denver Wholesale, 67 FR 99,986 (2002).
The Deputy Administrator’s review of
the investigative file reveals that on May
6, 1998, Net was initially granted DEA
registration to distribute ephedrine,
pseudoephedrine and
phyenylpropanolamine List I chemical
products. The company’s registered
location was 3415 9th Avenue,
Huntsville, Alabama 35805 and its
registration was last renewed on
October 29, 2002. On October 17, 2003,
prior to expiration of the current
registration, the company’s owner, Mr.
Valiollah Geholamkhas, submitted an
application for renewal. On October 20,
2003, he filed an application for
modification of Net’s registered location
to 7000 North Parkway, Huntsville,
Alabama 35810.
At the time of initial DEA registration,
Net held a permit issued by the
Alabama Board of Pharmacy (Alabama
Board) as a distributor of List I
chemicals. Despite a state requirement
to maintain the permit, Net did not
apply for renewal and its permit lapsed
on December 31, 2001. Nevertheless, the
company continued to operate and
distribute List I chemicals within
Alabama for approximately two more
years.
On Net’s current application for
renewal of DEA registration, by
checking ‘‘N/A’’ and failing to list a
state license/permit number in response
to Question 1(a), Mr. Geholamkhas
represented that Alabama did not
require a state license to distribute listed
chemicals. This was a material
falsification of an application in
violation of 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(4)(A).
On January 22, 2004, when DEA
Diversion Investigators conducted an
inspection of Net’s proposed new
location at 7000 North Parkway, they
discovered the company was already
conducting business there, without
notifying DEA and obtaining approval
for the new and separate location, as
required by 21 CFR 1309.23. A record
review revealed that over a seven month
period, during which Net lacked an
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:17 May 09, 2005
Jkt 205001
Alabama permit and DEA authorization
to conduct business at its new location,
Net purchased over 45 million
milligrams of combination ephedrine
tablets. In subsequent correspondence
with the Alabama Board, Mr.
Geholamkhas admitted the company
had distributed List I chemicals from its
new location, without DEA approval.
In May 2004, the Alabama Board,
issued its Order finding Net had sold
and delivered List I chemical products
during a period when it did not hold a
current Alabama distributor permit. The
Alabama Board imposed a $1000.00 fine
and granted Net’s application for a new
state permit, but placed it on
probationary status for three years.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and
823(h), the Deputy Administrator may
revoke a DEA Certificate of Registration
and deny any pending applications for
renewal of such registration if she
determines that granting the registration
would be inconsistent with the public
interest. Section 823(h) requires the
following factors be considered in
determining the public interest:
(1) Maintenance of effective controls
against diversion of listed chemicals
into other than legitimate channels;
(2) Compliance with applicable
Federal, State and local law;
(3) Any prior conviction record under
Federal or State laws relating to
controlled substances or to chemicals
controlled under Federal or State law;
(4) Any past experience of the
applicant in the manufacture and
distribution of chemicals; and
(5) Such other factors as are relevant
to and consistent with the public health
and safety.
As with the public interest analysis
for practitioners and pharmacies
pursuant to subsection (f) of section 823,
these factors are considered in the
disjunctive; the Deputy Administrator
may on any one or a combination of
factors and may give each factor the
weight she deems appropriate in
determining whether a registration
should be revoked or an application for
registration denied. See, e.g., Energy
Outlet, 64 FR 14,269 (1999); Henry J.
Schwartz, Jr., M.D., 54 FR 16422 (1989).
The Deputy Administrator finds
factors two and five relevant to Net’s
continued registration and its aplication
for renewal.
As to factor two, compliance with
Federal, State and local law, the record
shows that for a two year period, Net
distributed List I chemicals without a
state permit that is required to engage in
that activity. Further, for a period of at
least seven months the company also
violated Federal law and regulations by
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24627
distributing List I chemicals from an
unregistered location.
With regard to factor five, other
factors relevant to and consistent with
the public health and safety, the Deputy
Adminstrator finds that in his
application for renewal, Mr.
Geholamkhas intentionally
misrepresented the status of his
authority to distribute List I chemicals
under State law, when he falsely
indicated that no state license or
registration was required for his
company to distribute those products in
Alabama. This lack of candor, taken
together with the registrant’s disregard
of law and regulations discussed above,
makes questionable Net and its owner’s
commitment to the statutory and
regulatory requirements designed to
protect the public from diversion of
listed chemicals. See e.g., Seaside
Pharmaceutical Co., 67 FR 35,459
(2001).
Finally, the Deputy Administrator
also finds factor five relevant to the
company’s request to continue
distributing phenylpropanolamine and
the apparent lack of safety associated
with the use of that product. DEA has
previously determined that an
applicant’s request to distribute
phenylpropanolamine constitutes a
ground under factor five for denial of an
application for registration. See e.g.,
John E. McRae d/b/a J & H Wholesale,
69 FR 51,480 (2004); Direct Wholesale,
69 FR 11,654 (2004); ANM Wholesale,
69 FR 11,652 (2004); Shani Distributors,
68 FR 62,324 (2003).
Accordingly, the Deputy
Administration of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the
authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823
and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,
hereby orders that DEA Certificate of
Registration 002918NOY, previously
issued to Net Wholesale, be, and it
hereby is, revoked. The Deputy
Administrator further orders that the
pending applications for renewal and
modification of the aforementioned
registration be, and they hereby are,
denied. This order is effective June 9,
2005.
Dated: May 2, 2005.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–9282 Filed 5–9–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–M
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
10MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 10, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24626-24627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9282]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Net Wholesale; Revocation of Registration
On September 16, 2004, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office
of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order to Show Cause to Net Wholesale (Net) proposing to revoke its DEA
Certificate of Registration 002918NOY as a distributor of List I
chemicals pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4), on the ground that Net's
continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest,
as that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(h). The order also notified Net
that should no request for a hearing be filed within 30 days, its
hearing right would be deemed waived.
According to the DEA investigative file, the Order to Show Cause
was sent by certified mail to Net at its registered location at 3415
9th Avenue, Huntsville, Alabama 35805. That correspondence was returned
to DEA as ``Unclaimed,'' indicating the addressee had twice failed to
respond to postal service notices to pick up the letter. On November 4,
2004, the Order to Show Cause was re-mailed to Net at its registered
address by regular first class mail. That correspondence has not been
returned to DEA and is presumed to have been received. DEA has not
received a request for a hearing or any other reply from Net or anyone
purporting to represent the company in this matter.
Therefore, the Deputy Administrator of DEA, finding that (1) thirty
days have passed since delivery of the Order to Show Cause, and (2) no
request for a hearing having been received, concludes that Net has
waived its hearing right. See Aqui Enterprises, 67 FR 12,576 (2002).
After considering relevant material from the investigative file, the
Deputy Administrator now enters her final order without a hearing
pursuant to 21 CFR 1309.53(c) and (d) and 1316.67. The Deputy
Administrator finds as follows.
List I chemicals are those that may be used in the manufacture of a
controlled substance in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. 21
U.S.C. 802(34); 21 CFR 1310.02(a). Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine are
List I chemicals commonly used to illegally manufacture
methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance.
Phenhylpropanolamine, also a List I chemical, is presently a
legitimately manufactured and distributed product used to provide
relief of the symptoms
[[Page 24627]]
resulting from irritation of the sinus, nasal and upper respiratory
tract tissues, and is also used for weight control. Phenylpropanolamine
is also a precursor chemical used in the illicit manufacture of
methamphetamine and amphetamine.
As noted in previous DEA final orders, methamphetamine is an
extremely potent central nervous system stimulant and its abuse is a
persistent and growing problem in the United States. See e.g., Direct
Wholesale, 69 FR 11,654 (2004); Branex, Inc., 69 FR 8,682 (2004); Yemen
Wholesale Tobacco and Candy Supply, Inc., 67 FR 9,997 (2002); Denver
Wholesale, 67 FR 99,986 (2002).
The Deputy Administrator's review of the investigative file reveals
that on May 6, 1998, Net was initially granted DEA registration to
distribute ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phyenylpropanolamine List I
chemical products. The company's registered location was 3415 9th
Avenue, Huntsville, Alabama 35805 and its registration was last renewed
on October 29, 2002. On October 17, 2003, prior to expiration of the
current registration, the company's owner, Mr. Valiollah Geholamkhas,
submitted an application for renewal. On October 20, 2003, he filed an
application for modification of Net's registered location to 7000 North
Parkway, Huntsville, Alabama 35810.
At the time of initial DEA registration, Net held a permit issued
by the Alabama Board of Pharmacy (Alabama Board) as a distributor of
List I chemicals. Despite a state requirement to maintain the permit,
Net did not apply for renewal and its permit lapsed on December 31,
2001. Nevertheless, the company continued to operate and distribute
List I chemicals within Alabama for approximately two more years.
On Net's current application for renewal of DEA registration, by
checking ``N/A'' and failing to list a state license/permit number in
response to Question 1(a), Mr. Geholamkhas represented that Alabama did
not require a state license to distribute listed chemicals. This was a
material falsification of an application in violation of 21 U.S.C.
843(a)(4)(A).
On January 22, 2004, when DEA Diversion Investigators conducted an
inspection of Net's proposed new location at 7000 North Parkway, they
discovered the company was already conducting business there, without
notifying DEA and obtaining approval for the new and separate location,
as required by 21 CFR 1309.23. A record review revealed that over a
seven month period, during which Net lacked an Alabama permit and DEA
authorization to conduct business at its new location, Net purchased
over 45 million milligrams of combination ephedrine tablets. In
subsequent correspondence with the Alabama Board, Mr. Geholamkhas
admitted the company had distributed List I chemicals from its new
location, without DEA approval.
In May 2004, the Alabama Board, issued its Order finding Net had
sold and delivered List I chemical products during a period when it did
not hold a current Alabama distributor permit. The Alabama Board
imposed a $1000.00 fine and granted Net's application for a new state
permit, but placed it on probationary status for three years.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and 823(h), the Deputy
Administrator may revoke a DEA Certificate of Registration and deny any
pending applications for renewal of such registration if she determines
that granting the registration would be inconsistent with the public
interest. Section 823(h) requires the following factors be considered
in determining the public interest:
(1) Maintenance of effective controls against diversion of listed
chemicals into other than legitimate channels;
(2) Compliance with applicable Federal, State and local law;
(3) Any prior conviction record under Federal or State laws
relating to controlled substances or to chemicals controlled under
Federal or State law;
(4) Any past experience of the applicant in the manufacture and
distribution of chemicals; and
(5) Such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with the
public health and safety.
As with the public interest analysis for practitioners and
pharmacies pursuant to subsection (f) of section 823, these factors are
considered in the disjunctive; the Deputy Administrator may on any one
or a combination of factors and may give each factor the weight she
deems appropriate in determining whether a registration should be
revoked or an application for registration denied. See, e.g., Energy
Outlet, 64 FR 14,269 (1999); Henry J. Schwartz, Jr., M.D., 54 FR 16422
(1989).
The Deputy Administrator finds factors two and five relevant to
Net's continued registration and its aplication for renewal.
As to factor two, compliance with Federal, State and local law, the
record shows that for a two year period, Net distributed List I
chemicals without a state permit that is required to engage in that
activity. Further, for a period of at least seven months the company
also violated Federal law and regulations by distributing List I
chemicals from an unregistered location.
With regard to factor five, other factors relevant to and
consistent with the public health and safety, the Deputy Adminstrator
finds that in his application for renewal, Mr. Geholamkhas
intentionally misrepresented the status of his authority to distribute
List I chemicals under State law, when he falsely indicated that no
state license or registration was required for his company to
distribute those products in Alabama. This lack of candor, taken
together with the registrant's disregard of law and regulations
discussed above, makes questionable Net and its owner's commitment to
the statutory and regulatory requirements designed to protect the
public from diversion of listed chemicals. See e.g., Seaside
Pharmaceutical Co., 67 FR 35,459 (2001).
Finally, the Deputy Administrator also finds factor five relevant
to the company's request to continue distributing phenylpropanolamine
and the apparent lack of safety associated with the use of that
product. DEA has previously determined that an applicant's request to
distribute phenylpropanolamine constitutes a ground under factor five
for denial of an application for registration. See e.g., John E. McRae
d/b/a J & H Wholesale, 69 FR 51,480 (2004); Direct Wholesale, 69 FR
11,654 (2004); ANM Wholesale, 69 FR 11,652 (2004); Shani Distributors,
68 FR 62,324 (2003).
Accordingly, the Deputy Administration of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C.
823 and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders that DEA
Certificate of Registration 002918NOY, previously issued to Net
Wholesale, be, and it hereby is, revoked. The Deputy Administrator
further orders that the pending applications for renewal and
modification of the aforementioned registration be, and they hereby
are, denied. This order is effective June 9, 2005.
Dated: May 2, 2005.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-9282 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M