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