William W. Nucklos, M.D.; Dismissal of Proceeding, 34330 [E8-13618]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
34330
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 17, 2008 / Notices
71 FR 77791, 77797 (2006), here, no
such order was issued. Because there is
neither an existing registration nor an
application to act upon, and there is no
suspension order to review, this case is
now moot.2
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well
as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby
order that the Order to Show Cause
issued to Benjamin L. Levine, M.D., be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
Dated: June 6, 2008.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–13617 Filed 6–16–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 07–40]
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
William W. Nucklos, M.D.; Dismissal of
Proceeding
On June 18, 2007, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to William W. Nucklos,
M.D. (Respondent), of Powell, Ohio. The
Show Cause Order proposed the
revocation of Respondent’s registration,
BN2037314, as a practitioner, and the
denial of any pending application to
renew his registration, on two grounds.
First, the Show Cause Order alleged
that on March 8, 2006, the State Medical
Board of Ohio had suspended
Respondent’s state medical license.
Show Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3)). Second, the Show Cause
Order alleged that on or about February
15, 2006, Respondent had been
‘‘convicted of ten felony counts of drug
trafficking and the illegal processing of
drug documents.’’ Id.; see also 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(2) & (a)(4).
Respondent requested a hearing on
the allegations; the matter was therefore
assigned to Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) Mary Ellen Bittner. Thereafter, the
Government moved for summary
disposition and to stay the proceeding
on the ground that the Ohio board had
suspended Respondent’s medical
license, and Respondent was thus
without authority to handle controlled
substances in the State in which he
maintained his DEA registration. ALJ
2 The dismissal of a proceeding on mootness
grounds does not, however, have collateral estoppel
effect in the event that Respondent reapplies for a
DEA registration in the future.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Jun 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
Dec. at 1–2. The Government supported
its motion with a copy of the Notice of
Immediate Suspension which had been
issued by the Ohio Board, and which
referenced Respondent’s indictment and
conviction on ten felony counts of
trafficking Oxycontin, and ten felony
counts of ‘‘[i]llegal [p]rocessing of [d]rug
[d]ocuments.’’ Notice of Immediate
Suspension and Opportunity for
Hearing (Mar. 8, 2006) (citing Ohio Rev.
Code 2925.03 & 2925.23).
Respondent opposed the
Government’s motion. Respondent’s
principal contention was that his
convictions had been reversed by the
Court of Appeals of Clark County, Ohio,
and that he had a pending request with
the State Medical Board to vacate the
suspension because it had been based
on the criminal convictions.
Respondent’s Resp. at 1.
The ALJ granted the Government’s
motion. According to the ALJ, there was
no dispute that Respondent’s state
medical license remained suspended
and that he was not ‘‘currently
authorized to handle controlled
substances in Ohio.’’ ALJ at 3. The ALJ
further explained that although
Respondent had requested that the Ohio
Board vacate his suspension, he ‘‘ha[d]
not demonstrated that the suspension
will be lifted.’’ Id. Reasoning that she
was ‘‘compelled to grant the
Government’s motion’’ because
Respondent’s license had been
suspended, the ALJ recommended that
Respondent’s registration be revoked
and that any pending applications be
denied. Id. Thereafter, the record was
forwarded to me for final agency action.
In reviewing the record, I have taken
official notice of the Agency’s records
pertaining to Respondent’s registration
status.1 According to the Agency’s
records, Respondent’s registration
expired on October 31, 2007. Moreover,
there is no evidence showing that
Respondent has filed a renewal
application, let alone a timely one. See
21 CFR 1301.36(i). Accordingly, I
conclude that there is neither a
registration nor an application to act
upon. Id.
Under DEA precedent, ‘‘ ‘if a
registrant has not submitted a timely
1 Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
an agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any
stage in a proceeding-even in the final decision.’’
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorney General’s Manual on
the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm.
W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). In accordance
with the APA and DEA’s regulations, Respondent
is ‘‘entitled on timely request, to an opportunity to
show to the contrary.’’ 5 U.S.C. 556(e); see also 21
CFR 1316.59(e). Respondent can dispute these facts
by filing a properly supported motion for
reconsideration within fifteen days of service of this
order, which shall begin on the date this order is
mailed.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
renewal application prior to the
expiration date, then the registration
expires and there is nothing to revoke.’’’
David L. Wood, 72 FR 54936, 54937
(2007) (quoting Ronald J. Riegel, 63 FR
67132, 67133 (1998)). Moreover, while I
have recognized a limited exception to
this rule in cases which commence with
the issuance of an immediate
suspension order because of the
collateral consequences which may
attach with the issuance of such a
suspension, see William R. Lockridge,
71 FR 77791, 77797 (2006), here, no
such order was issued. Because there is
neither an existing registration nor an
application to act upon, and there is no
suspension order to review, this case is
now moot.2
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well
as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby
order that the Order to Show Cause
issued to William W. Nucklos, M.D., be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
Dated: June 6, 2008.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–13618 Filed 6–16–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
National Institute of Corrections
Solicitation for a Cooperative
Agreement—Inmate Behavior
Management: Implementation and
Evaluation
National Institute of
Corrections, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Solicitation for a Cooperative
Agreement.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This project has two areas of
focus: Assistance to selected jails in
implementing the six elements of
inmate behavior management and
evaluation of the process and impact of
implementation. The project award will
be for a two-year period, and the project
will be carried out in conjunction with
the NIC Jails Division. The awardee will
work closely with NIC Jails Division
staff.
DATES: Applications must be received
by 4 p.m. (EDT) on Friday, July 18,
2008.
ADDRESSES: Mailed applications must be
sent to: Director, National Institute of
2 The dismissal of a proceeding on mootness
grounds does not, however, have collateral estoppel
effect in the event that Respondent reapplies for a
DEA registration in the future.
E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM
17JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 34330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13618]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 07-40]
William W. Nucklos, M.D.; Dismissal of Proceeding
On June 18, 2007, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to William W. Nucklos, M.D. (Respondent), of Powell, Ohio.
The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's
registration, BN2037314, as a practitioner, and the denial of any
pending application to renew his registration, on two grounds.
First, the Show Cause Order alleged that on March 8, 2006, the
State Medical Board of Ohio had suspended Respondent's state medical
license. Show Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). Second,
the Show Cause Order alleged that on or about February 15, 2006,
Respondent had been ``convicted of ten felony counts of drug
trafficking and the illegal processing of drug documents.'' Id.; see
also 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2) & (a)(4).
Respondent requested a hearing on the allegations; the matter was
therefore assigned to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mary Ellen
Bittner. Thereafter, the Government moved for summary disposition and
to stay the proceeding on the ground that the Ohio board had suspended
Respondent's medical license, and Respondent was thus without authority
to handle controlled substances in the State in which he maintained his
DEA registration. ALJ Dec. at 1-2. The Government supported its motion
with a copy of the Notice of Immediate Suspension which had been issued
by the Ohio Board, and which referenced Respondent's indictment and
conviction on ten felony counts of trafficking Oxycontin, and ten
felony counts of ``[i]llegal [p]rocessing of [d]rug [d]ocuments.''
Notice of Immediate Suspension and Opportunity for Hearing (Mar. 8,
2006) (citing Ohio Rev. Code 2925.03 & 2925.23).
Respondent opposed the Government's motion. Respondent's principal
contention was that his convictions had been reversed by the Court of
Appeals of Clark County, Ohio, and that he had a pending request with
the State Medical Board to vacate the suspension because it had been
based on the criminal convictions. Respondent's Resp. at 1.
The ALJ granted the Government's motion. According to the ALJ,
there was no dispute that Respondent's state medical license remained
suspended and that he was not ``currently authorized to handle
controlled substances in Ohio.'' ALJ at 3. The ALJ further explained
that although Respondent had requested that the Ohio Board vacate his
suspension, he ``ha[d] not demonstrated that the suspension will be
lifted.'' Id. Reasoning that she was ``compelled to grant the
Government's motion'' because Respondent's license had been suspended,
the ALJ recommended that Respondent's registration be revoked and that
any pending applications be denied. Id. Thereafter, the record was
forwarded to me for final agency action.
In reviewing the record, I have taken official notice of the
Agency's records pertaining to Respondent's registration status.\1\
According to the Agency's records, Respondent's registration expired on
October 31, 2007. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that
Respondent has filed a renewal application, let alone a timely one. See
21 CFR 1301.36(i). Accordingly, I conclude that there is neither a
registration nor an application to act upon. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency
``may take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding-
even in the final decision.'' U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorney
General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm.
W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). In accordance with the APA and
DEA's regulations, Respondent is ``entitled on timely request, to an
opportunity to show to the contrary.'' 5 U.S.C. 556(e); see also 21
CFR 1316.59(e). Respondent can dispute these facts by filing a
properly supported motion for reconsideration within fifteen days of
service of this order, which shall begin on the date this order is
mailed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under DEA precedent, `` `if a registrant has not submitted a timely
renewal application prior to the expiration date, then the registration
expires and there is nothing to revoke.''' David L. Wood, 72 FR 54936,
54937 (2007) (quoting Ronald J. Riegel, 63 FR 67132, 67133 (1998)).
Moreover, while I have recognized a limited exception to this rule in
cases which commence with the issuance of an immediate suspension order
because of the collateral consequences which may attach with the
issuance of such a suspension, see William R. Lockridge, 71 FR 77791,
77797 (2006), here, no such order was issued. Because there is neither
an existing registration nor an application to act upon, and there is
no suspension order to review, this case is now moot.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The dismissal of a proceeding on mootness grounds does not,
however, have collateral estoppel effect in the event that
Respondent reapplies for a DEA registration in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and
824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby order that the
Order to Show Cause issued to William W. Nucklos, M.D., be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
Dated: June 6, 2008.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-13618 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
