Louisiana All Snax, Inc.; Dismissal of Proceeding, 20034 [2011-8541]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
20034
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices
0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby grant the
Government’s motion to terminate the
proceeding. I further order that the
Order to Show Cause and Immediate
Suspension of Registration issued to
Robert Charles Ley, D.O, be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
Dated: April 1, 2011.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011–8544 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 10–28]
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Louisiana All Snax, Inc.; Dismissal of
Proceeding
On January 21, 2010, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order To
Show Cause to Louisiana All Snax, Inc.
(Respondent), of Baton Rouge,
Louisiana. The Show Cause Order
proposed the revocation of Respondent
DEA’s Certificate of Registration, which
authorized it to distribute the list I
chemicals ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine, on the ground that,
effective August 15, 2009, the State of
Louisiana made both chemicals
Schedule V controlled substances; that
those persons who distribute these
substances ‘‘must possess a license
issued by the Louisiana Board of
Pharmacy’’; that Respondent ‘‘does not
possess’’ the necessary license; and that
DEA must therefore revoke its
registration. Show Cause Order at 1
(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), La. Rev. Stat.
Ann. §§ 40:973 & 40:1049.1).
On February 18, 2010, Respondent
requested a hearing on the allegations.
In his letter, Respondent’s owner stated
that it had ‘‘stopped distributing
ephedrine products prior to August 15,
2009 and do[es] not plan to distribute
any as long as Act 314 * * * is in effect.
My registration certificate will expire in
March 2010 and we do not plan to
renew it because we can not distribute
legally.’’ Letter of Robert Howerter to
Hearing Clerk (Jan. 28, 2010). Mr.
Howerter further wrote: ‘‘We do not
understand why the DEA is revoking a
certificate we can not use and will
expire in a little over a month especially
since we do not plan to renew it.’’ Id.
‘‘As a token of [his] good faith,’’ Mr.
Howerter ‘‘attached [his] certificate to
[his] letter.’’ Id.
The matter was then placed on the
docket of the DEA Office of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 Apr 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), and
on February 22, 2010, the ALJ ordered
the Government to determine whether
Respondent had filed a timely renewal
application and to provide evidence
supporting its allegation that
Respondent lacked the requisite State
authority. Order Directing the
Government To Provide Proof That
Respondent Lacks State Authority To
Handle Controlled Substances and
Briefing Schedule, at 1.
Two days later, the Government
moved for summary disposition or to
dismiss on the grounds of mootness.
Therein, the Government noted that it
had determined that Respondent’s
registration ‘‘expires on March 31, 2010’’
and that, ‘‘[a]s of the date of this filing,
Respondent has not filed an application
for renewal of its registration, and in its
request for a hearing Respondent
admitted that it does not plan to renew
its DEA registration.’’ Motion for Summ.
Disp., at 2. While the Government also
provided a copy of a letter from the
Louisiana Board of Pharmacy to a
Diversion Investigator stating that
Respondent does not hold a Louisiana
Controlled Dangerous Substances
License and argued that ‘‘DEA must
therefore revoke Respondent’s DEA
registration,’’ the Government also
observed that ‘‘[d]ismissal of this matter
will also be appropriate * * * after
March 31, 2010, on grounds of
mootness, if Respondent does not apply
for renewal of its registration.’’ Id. at 3–
4.
Respondent did not file a response to
the Government’s motion. ALJ Dec. at 2.
On March 8, 2010, the ALJ granted the
Government’s motion for summary
disposition based on Respondent’s lack
of authority under State law to handle
listed chemicals. Id. at 5–6. However,
the ALJ also noted that under Agency
precedent, ‘‘‘[i]f a registrant has not
submitted a timely renewal application
prior to the expiration date, then the
registration expires and there is nothing
to revoke.’ ’’ Id. at 2 (quoting David L.
Wood, M.D., 72 FR 54936, 54937 (2007)
(quoting Ronald J. Riegel, D.V.M., 63 FR
67132, 67133 (1998))). Noting that the
Agency’s regulation imposes a 25-day
period to allow the parties to file
exceptions prior to the ALJ’s forwarding
of the record to my Office for final
agency action, the ALJ observed that by
the time a decision is issued ‘‘on the
proposed revocation * * * there will be
nothing to revoke and the issue will be
moot.’’ Id. at n.2. The ALJ thus
explained that ‘‘dismissal of this
proceeding on mootness grounds * * *
will be required when the matter is
transmitted to’’ me. Id. at 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Having taken Official Notice of the
registration records of the Agency, I find
that Respondent’s registration expired
on March 31, 2010, and that Mr.
Howerter was true to his word that
Respondent did ‘‘not plan to renew it.’’
Because Respondent’s registration has
now expired and there is no pending
renewal application, there is neither a
registration, nor an application, to act
upon. Accordingly, the case is now
moot. See, e.g., Riegel, 63 FR at 67133.
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 order
that the Order To Show Cause issued to
Louisiana All Snax, Inc., be, and it
hereby is, dismissed. This order is
effective immediately.
Dated: April 1, 2011.
Michelle M. Leonhart,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011–8541 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 10–25]
Calvin Ramsey, M.D.; Revocation of
Registration
On December 18, 2009, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Calvin Ramsey, M.D.
(Respondent), of Millington, Tennessee.
The Show Cause Order proposed the
revocation of Respondent’s DEA
Certificate of Registration, AR7086689,
as a practitioner, and the denial of any
pending application to renew or modify
the registration, on the ground that he
does not ‘‘have authority to practice
medicine or handle controlled
substances in the State of Mississippi,’’
the State in which he is registered with
DEA.1 Show Cause Order at 1 (citing 21
U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(4)).
On January 8, 2010, Respondent, who
is currently incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institute Memphis Satellite
Camp in Millington, Tennessee,
requested a hearing on the allegations 2
1 The Order also alleged that Respondent’s
Registration does not expire until April 30, 2012.
Show Cause Order at 1. Because Respondent does
not dispute this, I find that he has a current
registration.
2 Therein, Respondent also requested that the
Administrative Law Judge ‘‘issue a writ of Habeas
Corpus to allow [him] to have a personal hearing
in Springfield, Virginia in the interest of true
[j]ustice.’’ Response to Order to Show Cause, at 2.
E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM
11APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 20034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8541]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 10-28]
Louisiana All Snax, Inc.; Dismissal of Proceeding
On January 21, 2010, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order To
Show Cause to Louisiana All Snax, Inc. (Respondent), of Baton Rouge,
Louisiana. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent
DEA's Certificate of Registration, which authorized it to distribute
the list I chemicals ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, on the ground that,
effective August 15, 2009, the State of Louisiana made both chemicals
Schedule V controlled substances; that those persons who distribute
these substances ``must possess a license issued by the Louisiana Board
of Pharmacy''; that Respondent ``does not possess'' the necessary
license; and that DEA must therefore revoke its registration. Show
Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
Sec. Sec. 40:973 & 40:1049.1).
On February 18, 2010, Respondent requested a hearing on the
allegations. In his letter, Respondent's owner stated that it had
``stopped distributing ephedrine products prior to August 15, 2009 and
do[es] not plan to distribute any as long as Act 314 * * * is in
effect. My registration certificate will expire in March 2010 and we do
not plan to renew it because we can not distribute legally.'' Letter of
Robert Howerter to Hearing Clerk (Jan. 28, 2010). Mr. Howerter further
wrote: ``We do not understand why the DEA is revoking a certificate we
can not use and will expire in a little over a month especially since
we do not plan to renew it.'' Id. ``As a token of [his] good faith,''
Mr. Howerter ``attached [his] certificate to [his] letter.'' Id.
The matter was then placed on the docket of the DEA Office of
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), and on February 22, 2010, the ALJ
ordered the Government to determine whether Respondent had filed a
timely renewal application and to provide evidence supporting its
allegation that Respondent lacked the requisite State authority. Order
Directing the Government To Provide Proof That Respondent Lacks State
Authority To Handle Controlled Substances and Briefing Schedule, at 1.
Two days later, the Government moved for summary disposition or to
dismiss on the grounds of mootness. Therein, the Government noted that
it had determined that Respondent's registration ``expires on March 31,
2010'' and that, ``[a]s of the date of this filing, Respondent has not
filed an application for renewal of its registration, and in its
request for a hearing Respondent admitted that it does not plan to
renew its DEA registration.'' Motion for Summ. Disp., at 2. While the
Government also provided a copy of a letter from the Louisiana Board of
Pharmacy to a Diversion Investigator stating that Respondent does not
hold a Louisiana Controlled Dangerous Substances License and argued
that ``DEA must therefore revoke Respondent's DEA registration,'' the
Government also observed that ``[d]ismissal of this matter will also be
appropriate * * * after March 31, 2010, on grounds of mootness, if
Respondent does not apply for renewal of its registration.'' Id. at 3-
4.
Respondent did not file a response to the Government's motion. ALJ
Dec. at 2. On March 8, 2010, the ALJ granted the Government's motion
for summary disposition based on Respondent's lack of authority under
State law to handle listed chemicals. Id. at 5-6. However, the ALJ also
noted that under Agency precedent, ```[i]f a registrant has not
submitted a timely renewal application prior to the expiration date,
then the registration expires and there is nothing to revoke.' '' Id.
at 2 (quoting David L. Wood, M.D., 72 FR 54936, 54937 (2007) (quoting
Ronald J. Riegel, D.V.M., 63 FR 67132, 67133 (1998))). Noting that the
Agency's regulation imposes a 25-day period to allow the parties to
file exceptions prior to the ALJ's forwarding of the record to my
Office for final agency action, the ALJ observed that by the time a
decision is issued ``on the proposed revocation * * * there will be
nothing to revoke and the issue will be moot.'' Id. at n.2. The ALJ
thus explained that ``dismissal of this proceeding on mootness grounds
* * * will be required when the matter is transmitted to'' me. Id. at
2.
Having taken Official Notice of the registration records of the
Agency, I find that Respondent's registration expired on March 31,
2010, and that Mr. Howerter was true to his word that Respondent did
``not plan to renew it.'' Because Respondent's registration has now
expired and there is no pending renewal application, there is neither a
registration, nor an application, to act upon. Accordingly, the case is
now moot. See, e.g., Riegel, 63 FR at 67133.
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 order that the Order To
Show Cause issued to Louisiana All Snax, Inc., be, and it hereby is,
dismissed. This order is effective immediately.
Dated: April 1, 2011.
Michelle M. Leonhart,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-8541 Filed 4-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
