Jovencio L. Raneses, M.D.; Denial of Application, 11563-11564 [2010-5198]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Notices publications submitted for posting on the NIC website must meet the federal government’s requirement for accessibility (508 PDF or HTML file). All documents developed under this cooperative agreement must be submitted in draft form to NIC for review before the final products are delivered. Application Requirements: Applications should be concisely written, typed double spaced and reference the project by the ‘‘NIC Opportunity Number’’ and Title in this announcement. The package must include: a cover letter that identifies the audit agency responsible for the applicant’s financial accounts as well as the audit period or fiscal year that the applicant operates under (e.g., July 1 through June 30); a program narrative in response to the statement of work and a budget narrative explaining projected costs. The following forms must also be included: OMB Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance; OMB Standard Form 424A, Budget information—Non-Construction Programs; OMB Standard Form 424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs (these forms are available at https://www.grants.gov) and DOJ/NIC Certification Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; and the DrugFree Workplace Requirements (available at https://www.nicic.gov/Downloads/ PDF/certif-frm.pdf.) Applications may be submitted in hard copy, or electronically via https:// www.grants.gov. If submitted in hard copy, there needs to be an original and three copies of the full proposal (program and budget narratives, application forms and assurances). The original should have the applicant’s signature in blue ink. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Authority: Public Law 93–415. Funds Available: NIC is seeking the applicant’s best ideas regarding accomplishment of the scope of work and the related costs for achieving the goals of this solicitation. Funds may only be used for the activities that are linked to the desired outcome of the project. This project will be completed for the National Institute of Corrections Academy Division. Eligibility of Applicants: An eligible applicant is any public or private agency, educational institution, organization, individual or team with expertise in the described areas. Review Considerations: Applications received under this announcement will be subjected to a 3 to 5 person NIC Peer Review Process. VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:35 Mar 10, 2010 Jkt 220001 Note: NIC will NOT award a cooperative agreement to an applicant who does not have a Dun and Bradstreet Database Universal Number (DUNS) and is not registered in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). A DUNS number can be received at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line at 1–800– 333–0505 (if you are a sole proprietor, you would dial 1–866–705–5711 and select option 1). Registration in the CCR can be done online at the CCR Web site: https:// www.ccr.gov. A CCR Handbook and worksheet can also be reviewed at the Web site. Number of Awards: One. NIC Opportunity Number: 10A61. This number should appear as a reference line in the cover letter, where indicated on Standard Form 424, and outside of the envelope in which the application is sent. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 16.601. Executive Order 12372: This project is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372. Morris L. Thigpen, Director, National Institute of Corrections. [FR Doc. 2010–5237 Filed 3–10–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–36–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Jovencio L. Raneses, M.D.; Denial of Application On August 28, 2009, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Jovencio L. Raneses, M.D. (Respondent), of San Diego, California. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent’s DEA Certificate of Registration, BR5257907, which authorized him to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner, and the denial of any pending applications to renew or modify his registration, on the ground that Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in California, the State in which he is registered. Show Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a)(3)). The Order further notified Respondent of his rights to contest the action under 21 CFR 1301.43(a) & (c), and that if he failed to request a hearing, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing. Show Cause Order at 2. As evidenced by the signed return receipt card, on August 31, 2009, the PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 11563 Government served the Show Cause Order on Respondent by certified mail to his residence in San Marcos, California. GX B. Since that time, neither Respondent, nor anyone purporting to represent him, has either requested a hearing on the allegations or submitted a written statement in lieu of a hearing. Accordingly, I find that Respondent has waived both his right to a hearing and his right to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing. See 21 CFR 1301.43(d). I therefore enter this Decision and Final Order without a hearing based on evidence contained in the record submitted by the Government. I make the following findings. Findings Respondent previously held DEA Certificate Registration, BR5257907, which authorized him to dispense controlled substances in schedules 2N, 3N, 4 and 5, as a practitioner, at the registered location of 1666 Garnet Avenue, # 708, San Diego, California. GX E, at 1. On May 1, 2003, Respondent last renewed this registration; the registration was assigned an expiration date of April 30, 2006. Id. On September 27, 2006, nearly five months after the registration expired, Respondent submitted an application to renew this registration. Id. Based on the above, I find that Respondent has a current application before the Agency. However, I conclude that because Respondent did not file a timely application to renew the registration, the registration has not remained in effect pending the issuance of the Final Order in this matter. See 5 U.S.C. 558(c) (‘‘When the licensee has made timely and sufficient application for a renewal or a new license in accordance with agency rules, a license with reference to an activity of a continuing nature does not expire until the application has been finally determined by the agency.’’) (emphasis added). Respondent also previously held Physician’s and Surgeon’s Certificate No. C37687, which was issued by the Medical Board of California. See In re Jovencio L. Raneses, M.D., Default Decision and Order, at 1 (Med. Bd. of Cal., Jan. 27, 2009). However, the certificate expired on April 30, 2007, and was not renewed. Id. Moreover, on May 27, 2008, the Executive Director of the Board filed an accusation against Respondent alleging that he failed to comply with the Board’s order of February 26, 2008 that he submit to psychiatric and physical examinations no later than 30 days from the date of the order. In re Jovencio L. Raneses, M.D., Accusation at 4–5. Based on E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM 11MRN1 11564 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Notices Respondent’s failure to file a Notice of Defense to the Accusation within fifteen days as required by California law, the Board found that Respondent was in default and that the allegations of the accusation were true. Default Decision and Order, at 3–4. The Board then ordered that Respondent’s Physician’s and Surgeon’s Certificate be revoked effective on February 26, 2009. Id. at 5. Moreover, according to the online records of the Board, Respondent’s state license remains revoked. Discussion Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a practitioner must be currently authorized to handle controlled substances ‘‘under the laws of the State in which he practices’’ in order to obtain and maintain a DEA registration. See 21 U.S.C. 823(f) (‘‘The Attorney General shall register practitioners * * * if the applicant is authorized to dispense * * * controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.’’). See also id. § 802(21) (‘‘[t]he term ‘practitioner’ means a physician * * * 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’’). As these provisions make plain, possessing authority under state law to handle controlled substances is an essential condition for holding a DEA registration. Because Respondent’s California medical license has been revoked, he is without authority under state law to handle controlled substances and thus does not meet a fundamental statutory requirement for obtaining a new registration. See 21 U.S.C. 823(f); see also Richard Carino, M.D., 72 FR 71955, 71956 (2007). Accordingly, his application for a new DEA registration must be denied. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Order Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that the application of Jovencio L. Raneses, M.D., for a DEA Certificate of Registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective April 12, 2010. Dated: March 3, 2010. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. 2010–5198 Filed 3–10–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:35 Mar 10, 2010 Jkt 220001 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act Of 1993—Telemanagement Forum Notice is hereby given that, on February 1, 2010 pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), TeleManagement Forum (‘‘the Forum’’) 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, 4STARS Ltd., Zagreb, CROATIA; ACN, Inc., Concord, NC; AKT Solutions Ltd., South Croydon, UNITED KINGDOM; Albanian Mobile Communications Sh. A., Tirane, ALBANIA; Alclarus Limited, London, UNITED KINGDOM; ATLAS TELECOM Ltd, Moscow, RUSSIA; Blue Technology Corp, Taipei City, TAIWAN; Bright Consulting, Sofia, BULGARIA; Broadband Infraco (Pty) Ltd. Johannesburg, Gauteng, SOUTH AFRICA; Cable Television Laboratories Inc., Louisville, CO; CableVision, SA, Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA; CBOSS Middle East FZ–LLC, Dubai, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES; Ciminko, LUXEMBOURG; Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Sydney, NSW, AUSTRALIA; Compuware Corporation, Detroit, MI; Comware C&C International, Corp., Taipei, TAIWAN; Corel80, Fairfax, VA; CSN Technology Pty Ltd, Eveleigh, NSW, AUSTRALIA; Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC; Deutsche Bank, New York, NY; Empirix Inc., Bedford, NH; Enabling Potential, Inc., Ajax, Ontario, CANADA; Enghouse Systems Limited/ Asset Management Division, Markham, Ontario, CANADA; Enterprise Designer Institute, Daylesford, VIC, AUSTRALIA; EPM Telecom unicaciones S.A. E.S.P, Medellin, Antioquia, COLOMBIA; eStratega S.R.L., Olivos, Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA; Etisalat Cote d’Ivoire, Abidjan, IVORY COAST; Etisalat Misr, Cairo, EGYPT; Etisalat Nigeria, Banana Island, Ikoyi, Lagos, NIGERIA; ExcelaCom, Inc., Reston, VA; EXFO (Service Assurance), Chelmsford, MA; Exigen USA, Inc., San Francisco, CA; Federal University of Espirito Santo, ´ Vitoria, Espirito Santo, BRAZIL; ¨ Forschungsinstitut fur Rationalisierung, Aachen, GERMANY; Forther Ltda, Sao PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Paulo, SP, BRAZIL; GLOCOMP SYSTEMS (M) SDN. BHD., Petaling Jaya, Selangor, MALAYSIA; In-Corp AG, Victoria, BC, CANADA; Infosim GmbH & Co. KG, Wurzburg, GERMANY; Inidat Consulting, Capital Federal, ARGENTINA; INTEC Telecom Systems, Woking, Surrey, UNITED KINGDOM; Ipko Telecommunications LLC, Pristine, Kosova, SLOVENIA; Irdeto BSS, Carlsbad, CA; IT Management LTDA, Santiago, CHILE; IT Services Hungary LTD, Budapest, HUNGARY; Kulacom, Amman, JORDAN; MicroSigns, Inc., Montreal, Quebec, CANADA; Moov Benin, Porto-Novo, REPUBLIC OF BENIN; MOOV Central African Republic, Bangui, CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC; Moov Gabon, Liberville, ´ GABON; Moov Togo, Lome, TOGO; NS Solutions USA Corporation, San Mateo, CA; Nucleus Connect Pte Ltd, Singapore, SINGAPORE; OKTET Labs Ltd., St. Petersburg, RUSSIA; Omniware Solutions, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA; ORB Software and Systems PTE LTD, Singapore, SINGAPORE; OSS Evolution, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA; Oss Wave, Gatineau, Quebec, CANADA; Pegasystems, Inc., Cambridge, MA; Praesidium, Reading, UNITED KINGDOM; PT Tricada Intronik, Bandung, Jawa Barat, INDONESIA; Qualicom Innovations (Asia) Limited, Hong Kong, HONG–KONG CHINA; RiverMuse, London, UNITED KINGDOM; SARA computing and networking services, Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS; Sincera Consulting, LLC, Manchester, NH; SMI Technologies, London, UNITED KINGDOM; ech Nexxus, LLC, Potomac, MD; Telcel Niger (Etisalat), Niamey, NIGER;Telefonica Chile S.A., Santiago, Region Metropolitana, CHILE; Telefonica Ecuador/Otecel S.A., Quito, Quito, ECUADOR; Transmode Systems AB, Stockholm, SWEDEN; uFONE, Islamabad, PAKISTAN; Unisys Consulting Spain, Madrid, SPAIN; Viettel Corporation, Hanoi, VIETNAM; Virtus IT Limited, London, UNITED KINGDOM; Vodafone Ghana, Accra North, GHANA; Volubill, Montbonnot Saint Martin, FRANCE; Voxbone, Brussels, BELGIUM; and Wiston Wolf— ´ Engenharia e Consultoria Lda Alges, PORTUGAL, have been added as parties to this venture. The following members have changed their names: Albanian Mobile Communications to Albanian Mobile Communications Sh. A.; Lyse Tele AS to Altibox AS; Servei de Telecomunicacions d’Andorra to Andorra Telecom; Bluetouch to Blue Technology Corp; Broadband Infraco to Broadband Infraco (Pty) Ltd; CBOSS E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM 11MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 47 (Thursday, March 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11563-11564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5198]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Jovencio L. Raneses, M.D.; Denial of Application

    On August 28, 2009, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to 
Show Cause to Jovencio L. Raneses, M.D. (Respondent), of San Diego, 
California. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of 
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, BR5257907, which 
authorized him to dispense controlled substances in schedules II 
through V as a practitioner, and the denial of any pending applications 
to renew or modify his registration, on the ground that Respondent 
lacks authority to handle controlled substances in California, the 
State in which he is registered. Show Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 
U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a)(3)). The Order further notified Respondent of 
his rights to contest the action under 21 CFR 1301.43(a) & (c), and 
that if he failed to request a hearing, he would be deemed to have 
waived his right to a hearing. Show Cause Order at 2.
    As evidenced by the signed return receipt card, on August 31, 2009, 
the Government served the Show Cause Order on Respondent by certified 
mail to his residence in San Marcos, California. GX B. Since that time, 
neither Respondent, nor anyone purporting to represent him, has either 
requested a hearing on the allegations or submitted a written statement 
in lieu of a hearing. Accordingly, I find that Respondent has waived 
both his right to a hearing and his right to submit a written statement 
in lieu of a hearing. See 21 CFR 1301.43(d). I therefore enter this 
Decision and Final Order without a hearing based on evidence contained 
in the record submitted by the Government. I make the following 
findings.

Findings

    Respondent previously held DEA Certificate Registration, BR5257907, 
which authorized him to dispense controlled substances in schedules 2N, 
3N, 4 and 5, as a practitioner, at the registered location of 1666 
Garnet Avenue,  708, San Diego, California. GX E, at 1. On May 
1, 2003, Respondent last renewed this registration; the registration 
was assigned an expiration date of April 30, 2006. Id. On September 27, 
2006, nearly five months after the registration expired, Respondent 
submitted an application to renew this registration. Id. Based on the 
above, I find that Respondent has a current application before the 
Agency. However, I conclude that because Respondent did not file a 
timely application to renew the registration, the registration has not 
remained in effect pending the issuance of the Final Order in this 
matter. See 5 U.S.C. 558(c) (``When the licensee has made timely and 
sufficient application for a renewal or a new license in accordance 
with agency rules, a license with reference to an activity of a 
continuing nature does not expire until the application has been 
finally determined by the agency.'') (emphasis added).
    Respondent also previously held Physician's and Surgeon's 
Certificate No. C37687, which was issued by the Medical Board of 
California. See In re Jovencio L. Raneses, M.D., Default Decision and 
Order, at 1 (Med. Bd. of Cal., Jan. 27, 2009). However, the certificate 
expired on April 30, 2007, and was not renewed. Id. Moreover, on May 
27, 2008, the Executive Director of the Board filed an accusation 
against Respondent alleging that he failed to comply with the Board's 
order of February 26, 2008 that he submit to psychiatric and physical 
examinations no later than 30 days from the date of the order. In re 
Jovencio L. Raneses, M.D., Accusation at 4-5. Based on

[[Page 11564]]

Respondent's failure to file a Notice of Defense to the Accusation 
within fifteen days as required by California law, the Board found that 
Respondent was in default and that the allegations of the accusation 
were true. Default Decision and Order, at 3-4. The Board then ordered 
that Respondent's Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate be revoked 
effective on February 26, 2009. Id. at 5. Moreover, according to the 
online records of the Board, Respondent's state license remains 
revoked.

Discussion

    Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a practitioner must be 
currently authorized to handle controlled substances ``under the laws 
of the State in which he practices'' in order to obtain and maintain a 
DEA registration. See 21 U.S.C. 823(f) (``The Attorney General shall 
register practitioners * * * if the applicant is authorized to dispense 
* * * controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he 
practices.''). See also id. Sec.  802(21) (``[t]he term `practitioner' 
means a physician * * * 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''). As these provisions make plain, possessing 
authority under state law to handle controlled substances is an 
essential condition for holding a DEA registration.
    Because Respondent's California medical license has been revoked, 
he is without authority under state law to handle controlled substances 
and thus does not meet a fundamental statutory requirement for 
obtaining a new registration. See 21 U.S.C. 823(f); see also Richard 
Carino, M.D., 72 FR 71955, 71956 (2007). Accordingly, his application 
for a new DEA registration must be denied.

Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as well 
as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that the application of Jovencio L. 
Raneses, M.D., for a DEA Certificate of Registration, be, and it hereby 
is, denied. This Order is effective April 12, 2010.

    Dated: March 3, 2010.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-5198 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.