Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D.; Decision and Order, 34552-34553 [2017-15494]
Download as PDF
34552
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 25, 2017 / Notices
On May 30, 2012, BSTC filed its
original notification pursuant to Section
6(a) of the Act. The Department of
Justice published a notice in the Federal
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the
Act on June 18, 2012 (77 FR 36292).
The last notification was filed with
the Department on October 5, 2012. A
notice was published in the Federal
Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the
Act on November 6, 2012 (77 FR 66635).
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust
Division.
[FR Doc. 2017–15584 Filed 7–24–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D.; Decision
and Order
On February 10, 2017, the Assistant
Administrator, Division of Diversion
Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Mohammed S. Aljanaby,
M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant),1 of West
Hartford, Connecticut. Show Cause
Order, at 1. The Show Cause Order
proposed the revocation of Registrant’s
DEA Certificate of Registration, on the
ground that he does not have authority
to handle controlled substances in
Connecticut, the State in which he is
registered with DEA. Id.
As to the Agency’s jurisdiction, the
Show Cause Order alleged that
Registrant possesses a practitioner’s
registration for schedules II through V,
and that his registered address is 74
Park Road, West Hartford, Connecticut.
Id. The Order further alleged that
Registrant’s registration ‘‘expires by its
own terms on June 30, 2017.’’ Id.
As to the substantive ground for the
proposed action, the Show Cause Order
alleged that ‘‘[o]n November 15, 2017,
the State of Connecticut Medical
Examining Board revoked [his] license
to practice medicine due to [his] (1)
inappropriate physical and/or sexual
conduct with one or more female
patients; and (2) false statements on
[his] Connecticut medical license
renewal application.’’ Id. (emphasis
added). The Show Cause Order also
alleged that the Board’s ‘‘order remains
in effect.’’ Id.2 The Order further
1 Notwithstanding that Dr. Aljanaby is now an exregistrant, he is referred to as Registrant throughout
this Decision.
2 The Show Cause Order also notified Registrant
of his right to request a hearing or to submit a
written statement while waiving his right to a
hearing, the procedure for electing either option,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:30 Jul 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
asserted that Registrant’s registration
was subject to revocation based on his
lack of state authority. Id. at 2.
The Government attempted to serve
the Order to Show Cause on Registrant
through a variety of ways. These
included: (1) Mailing by first class mail
addressed to him at his registered
address; (2) a Diversion Investigator (DI)
going to his registered address, where he
was told that Registrant ‘‘had not
worked there for a very long time’’ and
his current location was unknown; (3)
the DI going to Registrant’s purported
residence on Laird Drive in Bristol,
Connecticut where no one answered the
door; 3 (4) mailing the Show Cause
Order by Certified Mail, Return Receipt
Requested, addressed to him at his
registered address; (5) mailing the Show
Cause Order by Certified Mail, Return
Receipt Requested, to his purported
residence address; (6) mailing the Show
Cause Order by Certified Mail, Return
Receipt Requested, to a second property
in Bristol, Connecticut, which is
purportedly owned by Registrant; (7)
mailing the Show Cause Order by
Certified Mail, Return Receipt
Requested, to an address in New York
State where he receives his property tax
bill from the Town of Bristol; and (8)
email sent to an address obtained from
a public access database maintained by
Thomson Reuters, which also
corresponds to the email address
Registrant provided to the Connecticut
Board. GX 3, at 1–2 (DI Declaration).
The first mailing was accomplished on
February 10, 2017; the other attempts at
service were made on February 22–23,
2017. Id.; see also GX 4 (Declaration of
Chief Counsel Analyst).
With the exception of the mailing to
his registered address (where he no
longer worked), each of the other
mailings was returned to the
Government and marked as
undelivered. GX 3, at 2. The
Government represents, however, that
the attempt to email the Show Cause
Order did not generate an error or
undeliverable message.
Of note, several courts have held that
the emailing of process can, depending
on the facts and circumstances, satisfy
due process, especially where service by
conventional means is impracticable
because a person secretes himself. See
and the consequence of failing to elect either
option. Show Cause Order, at 2. The Order also
notified Registrant of his right to submit a
Corrective Action Plan. Id. at 2–3 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(c)(2)(C)).
3 According to the Connecticut Medical
Examining Board’s Order, when the Board
attempted to served Registrant at this address its
mailing was returned and marked: ‘‘Return to
sender, No Such Street, Unable to Forward.’’ GX 3,
Appendix C, at 3.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink,
284 F.3d 1007, 1017–18 (9th Cir. 2002);
Snyder, et al. v. Alternate Energy Inc.,
857 N.Y.S. 2d 442, 447–449 (N.Y. Civ.
Ct. 2008); In re International Telemedia
Associates, Inc., 245 B.R. 713, 721–22
(Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2000); see also Richard
C. Quigley, 79 FR 50945 (2014); Emilio
Luna, 77 FR 4829, 4830 (2012). Given
the multiple attempts by the
Government to serve the Show Cause
Order by conventional means, including
by mailing it to the address where he
receives his property tax bills, I
conclude that the Government’s use of
email satisfies its obligation with
respect to service of the Show Cause
Order. See, e.g., Jones v. Flowers, 547
U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (due process does
not require actual notice but only
‘‘‘notice reasonably calculated, under all
the circumstances, to apprise interested
parties of the pendency of the action
and afford them an opportunity to
present their objections.’ ’’ Id. (quoting
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &
Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)).
On May 8, 2017, the Government
submitted a Request for Final Agency
Action. Therein, it represents that
Registrant did not request a hearing or
submit a written statement while
waiving his right to a hearing. The
Government thus seeks a final order
revoking Registrant’s registration.
I deny the Government’s Request for
an Order of Revocation. As support for
the proposed revocation, the
Government submitted a copy of the
Board’s Order revoking Registrant’s state
license, which states that it was actually
issued on the ‘‘15th day of November,
2016.’’ GX 3, Appendix C, at 9.
However, as noted above, the Show
Cause Order alleges that the Board
revoked his state license ‘‘[o]n
November 15, 2017.’’ See GX 2, at 1. I
need not decide, however, whether this
typographical error renders the Show
Cause Order defective as this case is
now moot.4
As noted above, the Show Cause
Order alleges that Registrant’s
registration was due to expire on June
30, 2017. Id. According to the
registration records of the Agency of
4 Had Registrant requested a hearing, the
Government could have corrected its error as to the
date of the Board’s Order by motion. And by
offering the Board’s Order to support a motion for
summary disposition, the Government would have
refuted any claim of prejudice. Cf. United States v.
Cina, 699 F.2d 853, 857 (7th Cir. 1983) (holding in
criminal prosecution that trial court’s amendment
of the alleged commencement date of conspiracy
charge by two years did not ‘‘affect[] a ‘material
element’ of the . . . charge, causing prejudice to the
defendant’’). Furthermore, as long as the Board’s
Order was still in effect, the date of its Order would
not be material.
E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM
25JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 25, 2017 / Notices
which I take official notice,5 Registrant’s
registration did, in fact, expire on June
30, 2017. Moreover, Registrant has not
filed a renewal application, whether
timely or not.
It is well settled that ‘‘[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.’’ Ronald J. Riegel, 63
FR 67132, 67133 (1998); see also
William W. Nucklos, 73 FR 34330
(2008). Furthermore, because Registrant
did not file a renewal application, there
is no application to act upon. See
Nucklos, 73 FR at 34330. Accordingly,
because there is neither a registration,
nor an application, to act upon, I hold
that this case is now moot.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR
0.100(b), I order that the Order to Show
Cause issued to Mohammed S.
Aljanaby, M.D., be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
Dated: July 14, 2017.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017–15494 Filed 7–24–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Notice of Lodging of Proposed Third
Modification to Consent Decree Under
the Clean Air Act
On July 19, 2017, the United States
lodged a proposed Third Modification
to the Consent Decree (‘‘Third
Modification’’) with the United States
District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania in the lawsuit entitled
United States, et al. v. Essroc Cement
Corp., Civil No. 2:11–cv–01650.
The Court approved the original
Consent Decree in 2012, resolving
claims under the Clean Air Act against
six Essroc cement facilities in three
states and Puerto Rico. The proposed
Third Modification affects only
Defendant’s Logansport facility in
Logansport, Indiana. The proposed
Third Modification reworks
requirements for controlling emissions
of nitrogen oxides, known as NOX, at
Logansport. Under the proposed
agreement, Essroc will no longer be
required to install a NOX control
technology known as SNCR (which
stands for selective non-catalytic
reduction) at Logansport Kiln 2. Instead,
Essroc will be required to install water
injection technology, another NOX
control technology, at both Logansport
kilns. In addition, the proposed
agreement reduces the allowable NOX
emissions rate at both kilns. Finally, the
proposed Third Modification notes that
Essroc is now known as Lehigh Hanson
ECC.
The publication of this notice opens
a period for public comment on the
Third Modification. Comments should
be addressed to the Assistant Attorney
General, Environment and Natural
Resources Division, and should refer to
United States v. Essroc Cement Corp.,
D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–2–1–09608. 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:
To submit
comments:
Send them to:
By email ......
pubcomment-ees.enrd@
usdoj.gov.
Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box
7611, Washington, DC
20044–7611.
By mail ........
During the public comment period,
the Third Modification may be
examined and downloaded at this
Justice Department Web site: https://
www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees.
We will provide a paper copy of the
Third Modification to 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 $3.25 (25 cents per page
reproduction cost) payable to the United
States Treasury. For a complete copy of
the original Consent Decree, the prior
approved modification, and the
proposed Third Modification (without
exhibits and signature pages), the cost is
$20.00.
Randall M. Stone,
Acting Assistant Section Chief,
Environmental Enforcement Section,
Environment and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2017–15541 Filed 7–24–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Nominations for the Task Force on
Apprenticeship Expansion
Employment and Training
Administration, Labor.
AGENCY:
5 See
5 U.S.C. 556(e); 21 CFR 1316.59(e).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:30 Jul 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34553
Solicitation of nominations to
serve on the Task Force on
Apprenticeship Expansion.
ACTION:
The Secretary of Labor invites
interested persons to submit
nominations for individuals to serve on
the Task Force on Apprenticeship
Expansion (hereinafter ‘‘the Task Force’’
or ‘‘the panel’’), a non-discretionary
federal advisory committee authorized
pursuant to section 8 of Executive Order
13801, entitled ‘‘Expanding
Apprenticeships in America’’
(hereinafter ‘‘the Executive Order’’),
which was issued on June 15, 2017 (82
FR 28229) and which directed the
Secretary of Labor to establish and chair
such a panel in the Department of
Labor.
DATES: If transmitted by mail,
nominations for individuals to serve on
the Task Force must be postmarked by
August 8, 2017. Alternatively, if Task
Force nominations are submitted
electronically or by hand delivery, such
nominations must be received by
August 8, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons may
submit Task Force nominations,
including relevant attachments, through
any of the following methods:
• Electronically: Send to:
Apprenticeshiptaskforce@dol.gov (and
please specify in the email subject line,
‘‘Nominations for Task Force on
Apprenticeship Expansion’’).
• Mail, express delivery, hand
delivery, messenger service, or courier
service: Submit one copy of the
documents listed above to the following
address: U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training
Administration, Office of
Apprenticeship, Task Force on
Apprenticeship Expansion, Room C–
5321, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
any questions concerning the Task
Force nomination process, please
contact Ms. Natalie S. Linton, Program
Analyst, Employment and Training
Administration, Office of
Apprenticeship, at Linton.Natalie.S.@
dol.gov, telephone (202) 693–3592 (this
is not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Task
Force is being established in accordance
with the provisions of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as
amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. The Task
Force is charged with the mission of
identifying strategies and proposals to
promote apprenticeships, especially in
sectors where apprenticeship programs
are insufficient. Upon completion of
this assignment, the Task Force shall
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM
25JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34552-34553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15494]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D.; Decision and Order
On February 10, 2017, the Assistant Administrator, Division of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant),\1\
of West Hartford, Connecticut. Show Cause Order, at 1. The Show Cause
Order proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of
Registration, on the ground that he does not have authority to handle
controlled substances in Connecticut, the State in which he is
registered with DEA. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notwithstanding that Dr. Aljanaby is now an ex-registrant,
he is referred to as Registrant throughout this Decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order alleged that
Registrant possesses a practitioner's registration for schedules II
through V, and that his registered address is 74 Park Road, West
Hartford, Connecticut. Id. The Order further alleged that Registrant's
registration ``expires by its own terms on June 30, 2017.'' Id.
As to the substantive ground for the proposed action, the Show
Cause Order alleged that ``[o]n November 15, 2017, the State of
Connecticut Medical Examining Board revoked [his] license to practice
medicine due to [his] (1) inappropriate physical and/or sexual conduct
with one or more female patients; and (2) false statements on [his]
Connecticut medical license renewal application.'' Id. (emphasis
added). The Show Cause Order also alleged that the Board's ``order
remains in effect.'' Id.\2\ The Order further asserted that
Registrant's registration was subject to revocation based on his lack
of state authority. Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Show Cause Order also notified Registrant of his right
to 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. Show Cause
Order, at 2. The Order also notified Registrant of his right to
submit a Corrective Action Plan. Id. at 2-3 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(c)(2)(C)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Government attempted to serve the Order to Show Cause on
Registrant through a variety of ways. These included: (1) Mailing by
first class mail addressed to him at his registered address; (2) a
Diversion Investigator (DI) going to his registered address, where he
was told that Registrant ``had not worked there for a very long time''
and his current location was unknown; (3) the DI going to Registrant's
purported residence on Laird Drive in Bristol, Connecticut where no one
answered the door; \3\ (4) mailing the Show Cause Order by Certified
Mail, Return Receipt Requested, addressed to him at his registered
address; (5) mailing the Show Cause Order by Certified Mail, Return
Receipt Requested, to his purported residence address; (6) mailing the
Show Cause Order by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to a
second property in Bristol, Connecticut, which is purportedly owned by
Registrant; (7) mailing the Show Cause Order by Certified Mail, Return
Receipt Requested, to an address in New York State where he receives
his property tax bill from the Town of Bristol; and (8) email sent to
an address obtained from a public access database maintained by Thomson
Reuters, which also corresponds to the email address Registrant
provided to the Connecticut Board. GX 3, at 1-2 (DI Declaration). The
first mailing was accomplished on February 10, 2017; the other attempts
at service were made on February 22-23, 2017. Id.; see also GX 4
(Declaration of Chief Counsel Analyst).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ According to the Connecticut Medical Examining Board's
Order, when the Board attempted to served Registrant at this address
its mailing was returned and marked: ``Return to sender, No Such
Street, Unable to Forward.'' GX 3, Appendix C, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the exception of the mailing to his registered address (where
he no longer worked), each of the other mailings was returned to the
Government and marked as undelivered. GX 3, at 2. The Government
represents, however, that the attempt to email the Show Cause Order did
not generate an error or undeliverable message.
Of note, several courts have held that the emailing of process can,
depending on the facts and circumstances, satisfy due process,
especially where service by conventional means is impracticable because
a person secretes himself. See Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int'l
Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2002); Snyder, et al. v.
Alternate Energy Inc., 857 N.Y.S. 2d 442, 447-449 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2008);
In re International Telemedia Associates, Inc., 245 B.R. 713, 721-22
(Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2000); see also Richard C. Quigley, 79 FR 50945
(2014); Emilio Luna, 77 FR 4829, 4830 (2012). Given the multiple
attempts by the Government to serve the Show Cause Order by
conventional means, including by mailing it to the address where he
receives his property tax bills, I conclude that the Government's use
of email satisfies its obligation with respect to service of the Show
Cause Order. See, e.g., Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (due
process does not require actual notice but only ```notice reasonably
calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties
of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present
their objections.' '' Id. (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &
Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)).
On May 8, 2017, the Government submitted a Request for Final Agency
Action. Therein, it represents that Registrant did not request a
hearing or submit a written statement while waiving his right to a
hearing. The Government thus seeks a final order revoking Registrant's
registration.
I deny the Government's Request for an Order of Revocation. As
support for the proposed revocation, the Government submitted a copy of
the Board's Order revoking Registrant's state license, which states
that it was actually issued on the ``15th day of November, 2016.'' GX
3, Appendix C, at 9. However, as noted above, the Show Cause Order
alleges that the Board revoked his state license ``[o]n November 15,
2017.'' See GX 2, at 1. I need not decide, however, whether this
typographical error renders the Show Cause Order defective as this case
is now moot.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Had Registrant requested a hearing, the Government could
have corrected its error as to the date of the Board's Order by
motion. And by offering the Board's Order to support a motion for
summary disposition, the Government would have refuted any claim of
prejudice. Cf. United States v. Cina, 699 F.2d 853, 857 (7th Cir.
1983) (holding in criminal prosecution that trial court's amendment
of the alleged commencement date of conspiracy charge by two years
did not ``affect[] a `material element' of the . . . charge, causing
prejudice to the defendant''). Furthermore, as long as the Board's
Order was still in effect, the date of its Order would not be
material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the Show Cause Order alleges that Registrant's
registration was due to expire on June 30, 2017. Id. According to the
registration records of the Agency of
[[Page 34553]]
which I take official notice,\5\ Registrant's registration did, in
fact, expire on June 30, 2017. Moreover, Registrant has not filed a
renewal application, whether timely or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 5 U.S.C. 556(e); 21 CFR 1316.59(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is well settled that ``[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.'' Ronald J.
Riegel, 63 FR 67132, 67133 (1998); see also William W. Nucklos, 73 FR
34330 (2008). Furthermore, because Registrant did not file a renewal
application, there is no application to act upon. See Nucklos, 73 FR at
34330. Accordingly, because there is neither a registration, nor an
application, to act upon, I hold that this case is now moot.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well
as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that the Order to Show Cause issued to
Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Dated: July 14, 2017.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-15494 Filed 7-24-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P