Craig S. Morris, DDS; Dismissal of Proceeding, 36966-36967 [2018-16313]

Download as PDF 36966 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–582 and 731– TA–1377 (Final)] Ripe Olives From Spain; Determinations daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of ripe olives from Spain, provided for in subheadings 2005.70.02, 2005.70.04, 2005.70.50, 2005.70.60, 2005.70.70, and 2005.70.75 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) and to be subsidized by the government of Spain.2 Background The Commission, pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted these investigations effective June 22, 2017, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by the Coalition of Fair Trade in Ripe Olives, consisting of BellCarter Foods, Walnut Creek, CA, and Musco Family Olive Company, Tracy, CA. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of ripe olives from Spain were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and sold at LTFV within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on February 22, 2018 (83 FR 7774). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on May 24, 2018, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 Commissioner Meredith M. Broadbent dissenting. Commissioner Jason E. Kearns did not participate in these investigations. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Jul 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on July 25, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4805 (July 2018), entitled Ripe Olives from Spain: Investigation Nos. 701–TA–582 and 731–TA–1377 (Final). or controlled substances registration revoked, suspended, denied, restricted or placed on probation, or is any such action pending?’ ’’ Id. at 2. The Order further alleged that, when he ‘‘submitted his applications to the DEA and provided a ‘no’ answer to Liability Question 3, [his] Nevada license to practice dentistry had been placed on probation and was currently By order of the Commission. suspended.’’ Id. Based on Respondent’s Issued: July 25, 2018. alleged ‘‘material falsification of [his] Lisa Barton, applications to the DEA,’’ the Order Secretary to the Commission. asserted that ‘‘DEA must revoke’’ his [FR Doc. 2018–16283 Filed 7–30–18; 8:45 am] registrations. Id. at 3. The Show Cause Order notified BILLING CODE 7020–02–P Respondent of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE the procedure for electing either option, Drug Enforcement Administration and the consequence of failing to elect either option. Id. (citing 21 CFR Craig S. Morris, DDS; Dismissal of 1301.43). The Show Cause Order also Proceeding notified Respondent of his right to submit a corrective action plan. Id. at On November 13, 2017, the Acting 3–4 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)). Assistant Administrator, Diversion The Government represents that on Control Division, Drug Enforcement November 20, 2017, a DEA Diversion Administration (DEA), issued an Order Investigator (DI) served a copy of the to Show Cause to Craig S. Morris, DDS Show Cause Order on Respondent by (Respondent), of Texas. The Show electronic mail to an email address that Cause Order proposed the revocation of the DI had previously used to Respondent’s Certificates of Registration correspond with Respondent in April FM5300582 and FM5293294 on the 2017 and that Respondent had provided ground that he ‘‘materially falsified [his] to DEA as a ‘‘contact email’’ in applications for [his] DEA Certificates of connection with his DEA Certificates of Registration.’’ Order to Show Cause, Registration. RFAA, at 3–4 (citing Government Exhibit (GX) A–8 to Declaration of DI, attached as GX A to Request for Final Agency Action RFAA, at 3). There is no dispute that (RFAA), at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1)). timely service occurred because the With respect to the Agency’s Government states that DEA’s Diversion jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order Control Division received Respondent’s alleged that Respondent was registered written submissions in connection with at that time in schedules II through V, the Show Cause Order on December 19, pursuant to DEA Certificates of 2017. RFAA, at 4 (citing the Diversion Registration Nos. FM5300582 and Control Division’s Acting Assistant FM5293294 at the addresses of 19121 Administrator’s December 20, 2017 West Lake Houston Parkway, Humble, letter to Respondent, attached as GX C TX, and 25130 Grogans Park Drive, The to RFAA, at 1). Woodlands, TX, respectively.1 Id. at 1–2. Although Respondent’s submissions The Order also alleged that these included a letter (dated December 12, registrations would each expire on 2017) entitled ‘‘Corrective Action Plan,’’ January 31, 2018. Id. the letter stated that it was ‘‘being As substantive grounds for the submitted in response to the Order to proceeding, the Show Cause Order Show Cause levied against me by your alleged that on February 9, 2015, office’’ and attached an affidavit in Respondent ‘‘submitted applications to support signed by Respondent and the DEA for the above-referenced notarized on December 15, 2017. Certificates of Registration’’ but Respondent’s Written Submissions materially falsified the application (hereinafter ‘‘Respondent’s Statement’’ when he ‘‘provided a ‘no’ response to or ‘‘Resp. Stat.’’), attached as GX B to Liability Question 3, which asked, ‘[h]as RFAA, at 1. Respondent did not, the applicant ever surrendered (for however, request a hearing. See cause) or had a state professional license generally id. Based on Respondent’s submission, I find that he waived his 1 The record establishes that Respondent was right to a hearing on the allegations. 21 registered as a ‘‘practitioner’’ with respect to each CFR 1301.43(c). However, pursuant to of the above DEA registrations. Certifications of 21 CFR 1301.43(c), I deem Respondent’s Registration History for FM5300582 and FM5293294, GXs A–1 at 1, 3; A–2, at 1, 3. submission to be his ‘‘written statement PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM 31JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES [of] position on the matters of fact and law involved’’ in the proceeding. See Arthur H. Bell, D.O., 80 FR 50035, 50036 (2015) (deeming Respondent’s letter to be a written statement pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c) because the letter ‘‘responded to each of the Government’s allegations’’ without requesting a hearing).2 On March 16, 2018, the Government forwarded its Request for Final Agency Action and the evidentiary record to my Office. Having reviewed the record, I find that this proceeding is now moot. The evidence in the record establishes that each of Respondent’s registrations at issue were due to expire on January 31, 2018, and according to the Agency’s registration record for Respondent, of which I take official notice,3 Respondent has not submitted an application to renew his registrations. DEA has long held that ‘‘ ‘if a registrant has not submitted a timely renewal application prior to the expiration date, then the registration expires and there is nothing to revoke.’ ’’ Donald Brooks Reece II, M.D., 77 FR 35054, 35055 (2012) (quoting Ronald J. Riegel, 63 FR 67312, 67133 (1998)). ‘‘Moreover, in the absence of an application (whether timely filed or not), there is nothing to act upon.’’ Id. at 35055. Although the Government acknowledges that Respondent’s DEA registrations expired on January 31, 2018 and prior to its March 16, 2018 Request for Final Agency Action, RFAA, at 1, the Government nonetheless argues that the ‘‘matter is not moot.’’ Id. at 5. Specifically, the Government claims that, prior to the issuance of the Show Cause Order, Respondent requested ‘‘to modify his DEA Certificates of Registration and change his registered address to an address in California, where [he] holds an active dental 2 In its Request for Final Agency Action, the Government properly treated Respondent’s written submissions as a ‘‘written statement’’ pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43. RFAA, at 6–8. However, because I am dismissing the Government’s Show Cause Order as moot, I decline to reach the question of whether Respondent’s submissions could also be deemed to have included a Corrective Action Plan pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C). 3 Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’ U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). In accordance with the APA and DEA’s regulations, Respondent is ‘‘entitled on timely request to an opportunity to show to the contrary.’’ 5 U.S.C. 556(e); see also 21 CFR 1316.59(e). To allow Respondent the opportunity to refute the facts of which I take official notice, Respondent may file a motion for reconsideration within 15 calendar days of service of this order which shall commence on the date this order is mailed. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Jul 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 license. That request for modification is pending.’’ Id. at 5–6. The Government’s argument that the case is not moot based on this purported modification request is unavailing for at least two reasons. First, as a threshold matter, the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent does, in fact, have a pending request to modify the address of his DEA registrations to an address in California. In its Request, the Government relies exclusively on the DI’s statement in her Declaration that, ‘‘[o]n February 17, 2017, Dr. Morris submitted a request for modification of his DEA Certificates of Registration [FM5300582 and FM5293294], seeking to change his address to 19121 Allingham Avenue, Cerritos, California.’’ GX A, at 3. The DI does not cite in her Declaration to any evidence in support of this statement. See id. Furthermore, the Government submitted a Certification of Registration History for each of these registrations (both dated March 12, 2018), and neither certification references this modification request. GX A–1; GX A–2. In addition, the Agency’s registration record for Respondent reflects no reference to these specific modification requests.4 Indeed, not even the Show Cause Order references the modification request. See GX A–8. Thus, because the Government’s argument against mootness relies entirely on a pending modification request not established in the record, I reject the Government’s argument on this basis alone. See RFAA, at 3. Second, even if the purported modification requests were made, my finding that this case is moot would not change. The Government argues that the Show Cause Order to revoke Respondent’s registrations is not moot when a request to modify such registrations remains pending (even after the expiration of the very registration that Respondent seeks to modify) because DEA regulations state that ‘‘a request for modification shall be handled in the same manner as an application for registration.’’ Id. at 5–6 (citing 21 CFR 1301.51(c)). I disagree. The fact that DEA handles a modification request ‘‘in the same manner as an application for registration’’ pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.51(c) does not mean that a modification request is the same as an application for a new registration in every respect. For example, although a registrant must pay a fee when he or she applies for a new registration, see 21 4 I take official notice of this fact pursuant to the authority set forth supra in footnote 3. PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 36967 CFR 1301.14(a), ‘‘[n]o fee shall be required for modification.’’ Id. 1301.51(c). Most importantly, even if a modification request is approved and a new certificate of registration is issued, DEA regulations state that the new (as modified) registration expires when the original registration certificate expires. Id. (‘‘If the modification of registration is approved, the Administrator shall issue a new certificate of registration . . . to the registrant, who shall maintain it with the old certificate of registration until expiration.’’) (emphasis added). Thus, unlike a timely renewal application, a request to modify the registration address of an existing registration (whether pending or granted) does not remain pending after that registration expires, nor does it operate to extend when that registration expires. See 21 CFR 1301.51(c).5 Accordingly, because Respondent has allowed his registrations to expire and did not file an application to renew his registrations, this case is now moot and will be dismissed. 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 Craig S. Morris, DDS, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. This Order is effective immediately. Dated: July 18, 2018. Uttam Dhillon, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. 2018–16313 Filed 7–30–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 5 Neither of the cases that the Government relies upon supports its position. RFAA, at 5–6 (citing Michael G. Dolin, M.D., 65 FR 5661, 5661 (2000); Daniel Koller, D.V.M., 71 FR 66975 (2006)). Michael G. Dolin focused on whether Respondent lacked state authorization to handle controlled substances and does not address the issue of mootness. 65 FR at 5661. The Government’s other case, Daniel Koller, actually cuts against its position. In that case, the registrant had separately submitted an application for a new DEA registration at a new location—in addition to prior submissions for modifications of the existing registration for the new location. 71 FR at 66979–81. Ultimately, the Agency found that ‘‘Respondent’s Registration . . . [had] expired . . . , and that Respondent did not file a renewal application, let alone a timely one, for this registration.’’ Id. at 66981. As a result, the Agency did not revoke the expired registration nor consider the pending requests to modify that registration, as the Government requests in this case. See id. Instead, the Agency held, as I do here, that ‘‘the revocation portion of this proceeding is moot.’’ Id. The Agency properly concluded in Koller that only the application for a new registration ‘‘remain[ed] a live controversy.’’ Id. E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM 31JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36966-36967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16313]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Craig S. Morris, DDS; Dismissal of Proceeding

    On November 13, 2017, the Acting Assistant Administrator, Diversion 
Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an 
Order to Show Cause to Craig S. Morris, DDS (Respondent), of Texas. The 
Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's Certificates 
of Registration FM5300582 and FM5293294 on the ground that he 
``materially falsified [his] applications for [his] DEA Certificates of 
Registration.'' Order to Show Cause, Government Exhibit (GX) A-8 to 
Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 
824(a)(1)).
    With respect to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order 
alleged that Respondent was registered at that time in schedules II 
through V, pursuant to DEA Certificates of Registration Nos. FM5300582 
and FM5293294 at the addresses of 19121 West Lake Houston Parkway, 
Humble, TX, and 25130 Grogans Park Drive, The Woodlands, TX, 
respectively.\1\ Id. at 1-2. The Order also alleged that these 
registrations would each expire on January 31, 2018. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record establishes that Respondent was registered as a 
``practitioner'' with respect to each of the above DEA 
registrations. Certifications of Registration History for FM5300582 
and FM5293294, GXs A-1 at 1, 3; A-2, at 1, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As substantive grounds for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order 
alleged that on February 9, 2015, Respondent ``submitted applications 
to the DEA for the above-referenced Certificates of Registration'' but 
materially falsified the application when he ``provided a `no' response 
to Liability Question 3, which asked, `[h]as the applicant ever 
surrendered (for cause) or had a state professional license or 
controlled substances registration revoked, suspended, denied, 
restricted or placed on probation, or is any such action pending?' '' 
Id. at 2. The Order further alleged that, when he ``submitted his 
applications to the DEA and provided a `no' answer to Liability 
Question 3, [his] Nevada license to practice dentistry had been placed 
on probation and was currently suspended.'' Id. Based on Respondent's 
alleged ``material falsification of [his] applications to the DEA,'' 
the Order asserted that ``DEA must revoke'' his registrations. Id. at 
3.
    The Show Cause Order notified Respondent of his right to request a 
hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu of 
a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the 
consequence of failing to elect either option. Id. (citing 21 CFR 
1301.43). The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent of his right to 
submit a corrective action plan. Id. at 3-4 (citing 21 U.S.C. 
824(c)(2)(C)).
    The Government represents that on November 20, 2017, a DEA 
Diversion Investigator (DI) served a copy of the Show Cause Order on 
Respondent by electronic mail to an email address that the DI had 
previously used to correspond with Respondent in April 2017 and that 
Respondent had provided to DEA as a ``contact email'' in connection 
with his DEA Certificates of Registration. RFAA, at 3-4 (citing 
Declaration of DI, attached as GX A to RFAA, at 3). There is no dispute 
that timely service occurred because the Government states that DEA's 
Diversion Control Division received Respondent's written submissions in 
connection with the Show Cause Order on December 19, 2017. RFAA, at 4 
(citing the Diversion Control Division's Acting Assistant 
Administrator's December 20, 2017 letter to Respondent, attached as GX 
C to RFAA, at 1).
    Although Respondent's submissions included a letter (dated December 
12, 2017) entitled ``Corrective Action Plan,'' the letter stated that 
it was ``being submitted in response to the Order to Show Cause levied 
against me by your office'' and attached an affidavit in support signed 
by Respondent and notarized on December 15, 2017. Respondent's Written 
Submissions (hereinafter ``Respondent's Statement'' or ``Resp. 
Stat.''), attached as GX B to RFAA, at 1. Respondent did not, however, 
request a hearing. See generally id. Based on Respondent's submission, 
I find that he waived his right to a hearing on the allegations. 21 CFR 
1301.43(c). However, pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), I deem Respondent's 
submission to be his ``written statement

[[Page 36967]]

[of] position on the matters of fact and law involved'' in the 
proceeding. See Arthur H. Bell, D.O., 80 FR 50035, 50036 (2015) 
(deeming Respondent's letter to be a written statement pursuant to 21 
CFR 1301.43(c) because the letter ``responded to each of the 
Government's allegations'' without requesting a hearing).\2\ On March 
16, 2018, the Government forwarded its Request for Final Agency Action 
and the evidentiary record to my Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In its Request for Final Agency Action, the Government 
properly treated Respondent's written submissions as a ``written 
statement'' pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43. RFAA, at 6-8. However, 
because I am dismissing the Government's Show Cause Order as moot, I 
decline to reach the question of whether Respondent's submissions 
could also be deemed to have included a Corrective Action Plan 
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having reviewed the record, I find that this proceeding is now 
moot. The evidence in the record establishes that each of Respondent's 
registrations at issue were due to expire on January 31, 2018, and 
according to the Agency's registration record for Respondent, of which 
I take official notice,\3\ Respondent has not submitted an application 
to renew his registrations. DEA has long held that `` `if a registrant 
has not submitted a timely renewal application prior to the expiration 
date, then the registration expires and there is nothing to revoke.' '' 
Donald Brooks Reece II, M.D., 77 FR 35054, 35055 (2012) (quoting Ronald 
J. Riegel, 63 FR 67312, 67133 (1998)). ``Moreover, in the absence of an 
application (whether timely filed or not), there is nothing to act 
upon.'' Id. at 35055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency 
``may take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding--
even in the final decision.'' U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorney 
General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. 
W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). In accordance with the APA and 
DEA's regulations, Respondent is ``entitled on timely request to an 
opportunity to show to the contrary.'' 5 U.S.C. 556(e); see also 21 
CFR 1316.59(e). To allow Respondent the opportunity to refute the 
facts of which I take official notice, Respondent may file a motion 
for reconsideration within 15 calendar days of service of this order 
which shall commence on the date this order is mailed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Government acknowledges that Respondent's DEA 
registrations expired on January 31, 2018 and prior to its March 16, 
2018 Request for Final Agency Action, RFAA, at 1, the Government 
nonetheless argues that the ``matter is not moot.'' Id. at 5. 
Specifically, the Government claims that, prior to the issuance of the 
Show Cause Order, Respondent requested ``to modify his DEA Certificates 
of Registration and change his registered address to an address in 
California, where [he] holds an active dental license. That request for 
modification is pending.'' Id. at 5-6. The Government's argument that 
the case is not moot based on this purported modification request is 
unavailing for at least two reasons.
    First, as a threshold matter, the record does not establish by a 
preponderance of the evidence that Respondent does, in fact, have a 
pending request to modify the address of his DEA registrations to an 
address in California. In its Request, the Government relies 
exclusively on the DI's statement in her Declaration that, ``[o]n 
February 17, 2017, Dr. Morris submitted a request for modification of 
his DEA Certificates of Registration [FM5300582 and FM5293294], seeking 
to change his address to 19121 Allingham Avenue, Cerritos, 
California.'' GX A, at 3. The DI does not cite in her Declaration to 
any evidence in support of this statement. See id. Furthermore, the 
Government submitted a Certification of Registration History for each 
of these registrations (both dated March 12, 2018), and neither 
certification references this modification request. GX A-1; GX A-2. In 
addition, the Agency's registration record for Respondent reflects no 
reference to these specific modification requests.\4\ Indeed, not even 
the Show Cause Order references the modification request. See GX A-8. 
Thus, because the Government's argument against mootness relies 
entirely on a pending modification request not established in the 
record, I reject the Government's argument on this basis alone. See 
RFAA, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ I take official notice of this fact pursuant to the 
authority set forth supra in footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, even if the purported modification requests were made, my 
finding that this case is moot would not change. The Government argues 
that the Show Cause Order to revoke Respondent's registrations is not 
moot when a request to modify such registrations remains pending (even 
after the expiration of the very registration that Respondent seeks to 
modify) because DEA regulations state that ``a request for modification 
shall be handled in the same manner as an application for 
registration.'' Id. at 5-6 (citing 21 CFR 1301.51(c)). I disagree.
    The fact that DEA handles a modification request ``in the same 
manner as an application for registration'' pursuant to 21 CFR 
1301.51(c) does not mean that a modification request is the same as an 
application for a new registration in every respect. For example, 
although a registrant must pay a fee when he or she applies for a new 
registration, see 21 CFR 1301.14(a), ``[n]o fee shall be required for 
modification.'' Id. 1301.51(c). Most importantly, even if a 
modification request is approved and a new certificate of registration 
is issued, DEA regulations state that the new (as modified) 
registration expires when the original registration certificate 
expires. Id. (``If the modification of registration is approved, the 
Administrator shall issue a new certificate of registration . . . to 
the registrant, who shall maintain it with the old certificate of 
registration until expiration.'') (emphasis added). Thus, unlike a 
timely renewal application, a request to modify the registration 
address of an existing registration (whether pending or granted) does 
not remain pending after that registration expires, nor does it operate 
to extend when that registration expires. See 21 CFR 1301.51(c).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Neither of the cases that the Government relies upon 
supports its position. RFAA, at 5-6 (citing Michael G. Dolin, M.D., 
65 FR 5661, 5661 (2000); Daniel Koller, D.V.M., 71 FR 66975 (2006)). 
Michael G. Dolin focused on whether Respondent lacked state 
authorization to handle controlled substances and does not address 
the issue of mootness. 65 FR at 5661. The Government's other case, 
Daniel Koller, actually cuts against its position. In that case, the 
registrant had separately submitted an application for a new DEA 
registration at a new location--in addition to prior submissions for 
modifications of the existing registration for the new location. 71 
FR at 66979-81. Ultimately, the Agency found that ``Respondent's 
Registration . . . [had] expired . . . , and that Respondent did not 
file a renewal application, let alone a timely one, for this 
registration.'' Id. at 66981. As a result, the Agency did not revoke 
the expired registration nor consider the pending requests to modify 
that registration, as the Government requests in this case. See id. 
Instead, the Agency held, as I do here, that ``the revocation 
portion of this proceeding is moot.'' Id. The Agency properly 
concluded in Koller that only the application for a new registration 
``remain[ed] a live controversy.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, because Respondent has allowed his registrations to 
expire and did not file an application to renew his registrations, this 
case is now moot and will be dismissed.

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 
Craig S. Morris, DDS, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. This Order is 
effective immediately.

    Dated: July 18, 2018.
Uttam Dhillon,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-16313 Filed 7-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-09-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.