Roderick Lee Mitchell, M.D.; Decision and Order, 3625-3626 [2014-01159]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2014 / Notices
After considering the written
submissions on review and the record in
this investigation, the Commission has
determined to affirm-in-part and
reverse-in-part the final ID of the ALJ
and to terminate the investigation with
a finding of violation of Section 337.
Specifically, the Commission has found
the following respondents in violation:
Precision Measurement International
LLC of Westland, Michigan; Sino
Legend (Zhangjiagang) Chemical Co.,
Ltd. of Zhangjiagang City, China; Sino
Legend Holding Group, Inc. of Kowloon,
Hong Kong; Sino Legend Holding Group
Ltd. of Hong Kong; Red Avenue
Chemical Co. Ltd. of Shanghai, China;
Shanghai Lunsai International Trading
Company of Shanghai City, China; Red
Avenue Group Limited of Kowloon,
Hong Kong; and Sino Legend Holding
Group Inc. of Majuro, Marshall Islands.
After considering the submissions of the
parties on remedy, the public interest,
and bonding, the Commission has
determined to issue a limited exclusion
order for a period of ten (10) years
prohibiting the unlicensed importation
of rubber resins made using any of the
SP–1068 Rubber Resin Trade Secrets
that are manufactured by, for, or on
behalf of violating respondents or any of
their affiliated companies, parents,
subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or
other related business entities, or their
successors or assigns. The Commission
has determined that the public interest
factors of 19 U.S.C. 1337(d) do not
preclude the issuance of a remedy. The
Commission has further determined that
the covered products may be imported
during the period of Presidential review
pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j) under
bond in the amount of 19% of entered
value.
The authority for the Commission’s
determination is contained in section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part
210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part
210).
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Dated: January 15, 2014.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014–01109 Filed 1–21–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:00 Jan 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Proposed
Consent Decree Under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
On January 10, 2014, the Department
of Justice lodged a proposed consent
decree with the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota in
the lawsuit entitled United States v.
U.S. Borax Inc., Civil Action No. 0:14–
cv–00118–DSD.
The proposed consent decree fully
resolves claims of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(‘‘EPA’’) against U.S. Borax Inc.
(‘‘Borax’’) for response costs, civil
penalties, and potential treble damages
under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675, with
respect to the South Minneapolis
Residential Soil Contamination
Superfund Site (‘‘Site) in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. A complaint, which was
filed at the same time that the United
States lodged the proposed consent
decree, alleges that Borax was an
operator of the Site during the period of
disposal of hazardous substances and,
as such, is liable for response costs
under Section107(a) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. 9607(a). Further, the complaint
alleges that Borax is liable for civil
penalties and damages under Sections
106(b) and 107(c)(3) of CERCLA, 32
U.S.C. 9606(b), 9607(c)(3), because it
failed to comply with a unilateral
administrative order issued by EPA to
undertake response actions at the Site.
Under the proposed consent decree,
Borax shall make a lump sum payment
of $1,225,000 to EPA as reimbursement
of response costs, and it shall make a
lump sum payment of $25,000 for civil
penalties and damages. Both payments
shall be made to the United States
within 30 days of entry of the Consent
Decree.
The publication of this notice opens
a period for public comment on the
proposed consent decree. Comments
should be addressed to the Assistant
Attorney General, Environment and
Natural Resources Division, and should
refer to United States v. U.S. Borax Inc.,
D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3–09719/3. All
comments must be submitted no later
than thirty (30) days after the
publication date of this notice.
Comments may be submitted either by
email or by mail:
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
To
submit
comments:
3625
Send them to:
By
email.
By mail
pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov.
Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. DOJ—ENRD,
P.O. Box 7611,
Washington, D.C. 20044–7611.
During the public comment period,
the proposed consent decree may be
examined and downloaded at this
Justice Department Web site: https://
www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_
Decrees.html. We will also provide a
paper copy of the proposed consent
decree upon written request and
payment of reproduction costs. Please
mail your request and payment to:
Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—
ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC
20044–7611.
Please enclose a check or money order
for $7.5 (30 pages at 25 cents per page
reproduction cost) payable to the United
States Treasury.
Maureen Katz,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Enforcement Section, Environment and
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2014–01129 Filed 1–21–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Roderick Lee Mitchell, M.D.; Decision
and Order
On June 10, 2013, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Roderick Mitchell, M.D.
(Respondent), of Daingerfield, Texas.
The Show Cause Order proposed the
revocation of Respondent’s DEA
Certificate of Registration AM1375179,
which authorizes 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 he ‘‘do[es] not have
authority to handle controlled
substances in the State of Texas,’’ the
State in which he is registered with
DEA. Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
As the factual basis for the action, the
Show Cause Order alleged that on
November 30, 2012, ‘‘[t]he Texas
Medical Board issued a [f]inal [o]rder
. . . which immediately revoked
[Respondent’s] license to practice
E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM
22JAN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3626
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2014 / Notices
medicine in the State of Texas.’’ Id. The
Show Cause Order also alleged that
Respondent’s Texas Department of
Public Safety Controlled Substances
Registration had ‘‘expired on January
23, 2013.’’ Id. The Order thus alleged
that Respondent is ‘‘currently without
authority to handle controlled substance
in the State of Texas.’’ Id. Finally, the
Show Cause Order notified Respondent
of his right to either request a hearing
or to submit a written statement while
waiving his right to a hearing, the
procedure for electing either option, and
the consequence of failing to elect either
option. See id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR
1301.43).
On June 14, 2013, a DEA Diversion
Investigator (DI) and Task Force Officer
(TFO) went to Respondent’s residence
in an attempt to personally serve him
with the Show Cause Order. GX 2, at 3.
The DI and TFO identified themselves
to the person who answered the door,
and who, based on Respondent’s
driver’s license photo, appeared to be
the Respondent; however, the person
denied that he was Respondent. Id.
According to the DI, this person shouted
to them, ‘‘[y’]all need to stop harassing
me’’ and slammed the door shut. Id.
at 4.
Later that same day, the DI mailed
two copies of the Show Cause Order to
Respondent: one by Certified Mail,
Return Receipt Requested, the other by
first class mail. Id. On June 17,
Respondent received the mailing, as
evidenced by both the signed return
receipt card and a print-out from the
U.S. Postal Services Track and Confirm
Web page. GX 5, at 3–4.
Moreover, on July 2, 2013,
Respondent wrote a letter to the DEA
Resident Office in Tyler, Texas and
enclosed a copy of a New Mexico
Controlled Substance Registration. GX
9, at 3–4. Therein, Respondent wrote:
‘‘This should clear up the issue of my
ability to possess a DEA license. Please
contact my attorney and I [sic] if this
does not solve the problem of my
possessing a DEA license.’’ Id. at 3.
However, in the letter, Respondent did
not request a hearing on the allegations
of the Show Cause Order. See id.
Thereafter, on October 9, 2013, the
Government submitted a Request for
Final Agency Action along with the
Investigative Record it compiled.
Based on Respondent’s failure to
request a hearing, I find that he has
waived his right to a hearing. See 21
CFR 1301.43(b). However, pursuant to
21 CFR 1301.43(c), Respondent’s July 2,
2013 letter has been ‘‘made a part of the
record’’ and will be considered in this
Decision. I make the following findings
of fact.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:00 Jan 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
Findings
Respondent is the holder of DEA
Certificate of Registration AM1375179,
which authorizes him to dispense
controlled substances in schedules II
through V, as a practitioner, at
registered premises located in
Daingerfield, Texas. GX 3, at 2.
Respondent’s registration does not
expire until January 31, 2015. Id.
Respondent formerly held a medical
license issued by the Texas Medical
Board. However, on November 30, 2012,
the Board issued a final order revoking
Respondent’s medical license based on
findings that he ‘‘failed to meet the
standard of care and did not maintain
adequate medical records.’’ GX 6, at 2–
3. On December 29, 2012, Respondent
filed a motion for rehearing; however,
on January 18, 2013, the Board denied
the motion and the order of revocation
became effective the same day. Id. at 2.
Respondent also held a Texas
Department of Public Safety Controlled
Substances Registration. GX 7, at 2–3.
However, on January 23, 2013, this
registration expired. Id. Accordingly, I
find that Respondent lacks authority
under the laws of Texas to dispense
controlled substances.
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the
Attorney General is authorized to
suspend or revoke a registration issued
under section 823 ‘‘upon a finding that
the registrant . . . has had his State
license . . . suspended [or] revoked
. . . by competent State authority and is
no longer authorized by State law to
engage in the . . . dispensing of
controlled substances.’’ Moreover, DEA
has repeatedly held that the possession
of authority to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the State
in which a practitioner engages in
professional practice is a fundamental
condition for obtaining and maintaining
a practitioner’s registration. See James L.
Hooper, 76 FR 71371, 71371 (2011)
(citing Leonard F. Faymore, 48 FR
32886, 32887 (1983)), pet. for rev.
denied, Hooper v. Holder, No. 11–2351,
2012 WL 2020079, at *2 (4th Cir. Jun.
6, 2012) (unpublished).
This rule derives from the text of two
provisions of the CSA. First, Congress
defined ‘‘the term ‘practitioner’ [to]
mean[] a . . . physician . . . or other
person 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.’’ 21 U.S.C.
802(21). Second, in setting the
requirements for obtaining a
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
practitioner’s registration, Congress
directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney General
shall register practitioners . . . if the
applicant is authorized to dispense . . .
controlled substances under the laws of
the State in which he practices.’’ 21
U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has
clearly mandated that a practitioner
possess state authority in order to be
deemed a practitioner under the Act,
DEA has held repeatedly that revocation
of a practitioner’s registration is the
appropriate sanction when he is no
longer authorized to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the State
in which he practices medicine. See,
e.g., Calvin Ramsey, 76 FR 20034, 20036
(2011); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71
FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A.
Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby
Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988).
Here, the Government has put forward
unrefuted evidence that Respondent’s
Texas Medical License has been revoked
and that his Texas controlled substance
registration has expired. While
Respondent submitted a copy of a state
controlled substance registration issued
by the State of New Mexico, the
existence of this registration is
immaterial because the DEA
registration, which is the subject of the
Order to Show Cause, authorizes him to
dispense controlled substances in the
State of Texas, where it is clear he is not
authorized to dispense controlled
substances and thus no longer meets the
statutory definition of a practitioner
under the Act. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21).
Accordingly, I will order that
Respondent’s Certificate of Registration
be revoked and that any pending
applications to renew or modify this
registration be denied.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3), as
well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I
order that DEA Certificate of
Registration AM1375179, issued to
Roderick Lee Mitchell, M.D., be, and it
hereby is, revoked. I further order that
any pending application of Roderick Lee
Mitchell, M.D., to renew or modify the
aforesaid registration, be, and it hereby
is, denied. This Order is effective
February 21, 2014.
Dated: January 15, 2014.
Thomas M. Harrigan,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014–01159 Filed 1–21–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM
22JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3625-3626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01159]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Roderick Lee Mitchell, M.D.; Decision and Order
On June 10, 2013, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Roderick Mitchell, M.D. (Respondent), of Daingerfield,
Texas. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA
Certificate of Registration AM1375179, which authorizes 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 he ``do[es] not have authority to
handle controlled substances in the State of Texas,'' the State in
which he is registered with DEA. Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
As the factual basis for the action, the Show Cause Order alleged
that on November 30, 2012, ``[t]he Texas Medical Board issued a [f]inal
[o]rder . . . which immediately revoked [Respondent's] license to
practice
[[Page 3626]]
medicine in the State of Texas.'' Id. The Show Cause Order also alleged
that Respondent's Texas Department of Public Safety Controlled
Substances Registration had ``expired on January 23, 2013.'' Id. The
Order thus alleged that Respondent is ``currently without authority to
handle controlled substance in the State of Texas.'' Id. Finally, the
Show Cause Order notified Respondent of his right to either request a
hearing or to submit a written statement while waiving his right to a
hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence
of failing to elect either option. See id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR
1301.43).
On June 14, 2013, a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) and Task Force
Officer (TFO) went to Respondent's residence in an attempt to
personally serve him with the Show Cause Order. GX 2, at 3. The DI and
TFO identified themselves to the person who answered the door, and who,
based on Respondent's driver's license photo, appeared to be the
Respondent; however, the person denied that he was Respondent. Id.
According to the DI, this person shouted to them, ``[y']all need to
stop harassing me'' and slammed the door shut. Id. at 4.
Later that same day, the DI mailed two copies of the Show Cause
Order to Respondent: one by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested,
the other by first class mail. Id. On June 17, Respondent received the
mailing, as evidenced by both the signed return receipt card and a
print-out from the U.S. Postal Services Track and Confirm Web page. GX
5, at 3-4.
Moreover, on July 2, 2013, Respondent wrote a letter to the DEA
Resident Office in Tyler, Texas and enclosed a copy of a New Mexico
Controlled Substance Registration. GX 9, at 3-4. Therein, Respondent
wrote: ``This should clear up the issue of my ability to possess a DEA
license. Please contact my attorney and I [sic] if this does not solve
the problem of my possessing a DEA license.'' Id. at 3. However, in the
letter, Respondent did not request a hearing on the allegations of the
Show Cause Order. See id. Thereafter, on October 9, 2013, the
Government submitted a Request for Final Agency Action along with the
Investigative Record it compiled.
Based on Respondent's failure to request a hearing, I find that he
has waived his right to a hearing. See 21 CFR 1301.43(b). However,
pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), Respondent's July 2, 2013 letter has
been ``made a part of the record'' and will be considered in this
Decision. I make the following findings of fact.
Findings
Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration
AM1375179, which authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in
schedules II through V, as a practitioner, at registered premises
located in Daingerfield, Texas. GX 3, at 2. Respondent's registration
does not expire until January 31, 2015. Id.
Respondent formerly held a medical license issued by the Texas
Medical Board. However, on November 30, 2012, the Board issued a final
order revoking Respondent's medical license based on findings that he
``failed to meet the standard of care and did not maintain adequate
medical records.'' GX 6, at 2-3. On December 29, 2012, Respondent filed
a motion for rehearing; however, on January 18, 2013, the Board denied
the motion and the order of revocation became effective the same day.
Id. at 2.
Respondent also held a Texas Department of Public Safety Controlled
Substances Registration. GX 7, at 2-3. However, on January 23, 2013,
this registration expired. Id. Accordingly, I find that Respondent
lacks authority under the laws of Texas to dispense controlled
substances.
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized
to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 ``upon a
finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . .
suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no
longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of
controlled substances.'' Moreover, DEA has repeatedly held that the
possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the
laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional
practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a
practitioner's registration. See James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371, 71371
(2011) (citing Leonard F. Faymore, 48 FR 32886, 32887 (1983)), pet. for
rev. denied, Hooper v. Holder, No. 11-2351, 2012 WL 2020079, at *2 (4th
Cir. Jun. 6, 2012) (unpublished).
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA.
First, Congress defined ``the term `practitioner' [to] mean[] a . . .
physician . . . or other person 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.'' 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in
setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration,
Congress directed that ``[t]he Attorney General shall register
practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . .
controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he
practices.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated
that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a
practitioner under the Act, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of
a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction when he is no
longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of
the State in which he practices medicine. See, e.g., Calvin Ramsey, 76
FR 20034, 20036 (2011); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131
(2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53
FR 11919, 11920 (1988).
Here, the Government has put forward unrefuted evidence that
Respondent's Texas Medical License has been revoked and that his Texas
controlled substance registration has expired. While Respondent
submitted a copy of a state controlled substance registration issued by
the State of New Mexico, the existence of this registration is
immaterial because the DEA registration, which is the subject of the
Order to Show Cause, authorizes him to dispense controlled substances
in the State of Texas, where it is clear he is not authorized to
dispense controlled substances and thus no longer meets the statutory
definition of a practitioner under the Act. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21).
Accordingly, I will order that Respondent's Certificate of Registration
be revoked and that any pending applications to renew or modify this
registration be denied.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and
824(a)(3), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I order that DEA
Certificate of Registration AM1375179, issued to Roderick Lee Mitchell,
M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending
application of Roderick Lee Mitchell, M.D., to renew or modify the
aforesaid registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is
effective February 21, 2014.
Dated: January 15, 2014.
Thomas M. Harrigan,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-01159 Filed 1-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
