Joel A. Smithers, D.O.; Decision and Order, 9836-9837 [2019-05013]
Download as PDF
9836
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 52 / Monday, March 18, 2019 / Notices
Dated: March 13, 2019.
Melody Braswell,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2019–04968 Filed 3–15–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Joel A. Smithers, D.O.; Decision and
Order
On November 15, 2018, the Assistant
Administrator, Diversion Control
Division, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to Joel A. Smithers, D.O.
(Registrant), of Martinsville, Virginia.
The Show Cause Order proposed the
revocation of Registrant’s DEA
Certificate of Registration No.
FS4850459 on the ground that he ‘‘has
no state authority to handle controlled
substances.’’ Government Exhibit (GX) 2
(Order to Show Cause) to Government’s
Request for Final Agency Action
(RFAA), at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
For the same reason, the Order also
proposed the denial of ‘‘any
applications for renewal or modification
of such registration and any
applications for any other DEA
registrations.’’ Id.
With respect to the Agency’s
jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order
alleged that Registrant is the holder of
Certificate of Registration No.
FS4850459, pursuant to which he is
authorized to dispense controlled
substances as a practitioner in schedules
II through V, at the registered address of
445 Commonwealth Blvd. East, Suite A,
Martinsville, Virginia. Id. The Order
also alleged that this registration does
not expire until February 29, 2020. Id.
Regarding the substantive grounds for
the proceeding, the Show Cause Order
alleged that on May 10, 2018, the
Virginia Board of Medicine issued ‘‘an
Order of Summary Suspension’’ that
suspended Registrant’s Virginia
osteopathic medical license. Id. The
Show Cause Order alleged that, as a
result, he is ‘‘currently without
authority to handle controlled
substances in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, the [S]tate in which [he is]
registered with the DEA.’’ Id. Based on
his ‘‘lack of authority to handle
controlled substances in the
Commonwealth of Virginia,’’ the Order
asserted that ‘‘DEA must revoke’’ his
registration. Id. at 1–2 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3); 21 CFR 1301.73(b)). Id.
The Show Cause Order notified
Registrant of (1) his right to request a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Mar 15, 2019
Jkt 247001
hearing on the allegations or to submit
a written statement in lieu of a hearing,
(2) the procedure for electing either
option, and (3) the consequence for
failing to elect either option. Id. at 2.
(citing 21 CFR 1301.43). 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)).
With respect to service, a Task Force
Officer (TFO) in the Roanoke Resident
Office of DEA’s Washington Field
Division executed a Declaration on
February 4, 2019, stating that she
‘‘personally served Registrant with the’’
Show Cause Order on November 20,
2018. GX 4 (Declaration of TFO) to
RFAA, at 1.
On February 5, 2019, the Government
forwarded its Request for Final Agency
Action and evidentiary record to my
Office. In its Request, the Government
represents that more than 30 days have
passed since Registrant had been served
with the Show Cause Order and that
‘‘Registrant has not requested a hearing
and has not otherwise corresponded or
communicated with DEA regarding the
Order served on him.’’ RFAA, at 1.
Based on the Government’s
representation and the record, I find that
more than 30 days have passed since the
Show Cause Order was served on
Registrant, and he has neither requested
a hearing nor submitted a written
statement in lieu of a hearing. See 21
CFR 1301.43(d). Accordingly, I find that
Registrant has waived his right to a
hearing or to submit a written statement
and issue this Decision and Order based
on relevant evidence submitted by the
Government and the findings below. See
id. I make the following findings.
Findings of Fact
Registrant is the holder of DEA
Certificate of Registration No.
FS4850459 pursuant to which he is
authorized to dispense controlled
substances in schedules II through V as
a practitioner at the registered address
of 445 Commonwealth Blvd. East, Suite
A, Martinsville, Virginia. GX 1
(Certification of Registration Status) to
RFAA, at 1. This registration does not
expire until February 29, 2020. Id.
In addition, I take official notice of an
‘‘Order of Summary Suspension’’
(Suspension Order) on the Virginia
Board of Medicine’s website,1 which
1 See https://www.dhp.virginia.gov/Notices/
Medicine/0102204264/0102204264
Order05102018.pdf. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
states that on May 10, 2018, the
Executive Director of the Virginia Board
of Medicine entered an order that
Registrant’s Virginia license to practice
osteopathic medicine ‘‘is SUSPENDED.’’
Suspension Order, at 1. In its
Suspension Order, the Virginia ‘‘Board
conclude[d] that a substantial danger to
public health or safety warrants this
action.’’ Id. The Suspension Order also
stated that it would apply to Registrant’s
‘‘multistate licensure privilege, if any, to
practice osteopathic medicine in the
Commonwealth of Virginia.’’ Id. Finally,
the Suspension Order ordered ‘‘that a
hearing be convened within a
reasonable time of the date of entry of
this Order to receive and act upon
evidence in this matter.’’ Id.
I also take official notice of the results
of a search of the Virginia Board of
Medicine’s license verification web page
showing that, as of the date of this
Decision, Registrant’s Virginia medical
license remains suspended.2 There is no
evidence in the record that the Virginia
Board of Medicine ever issued a
superseding order or decision ending
the suspension of Registrant’s medical
license. Accordingly, I find that
Registrant currently does not possess a
license to practice medicine in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the State in
which he is registered with the DEA.
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 of the Controlled
Substances Act (CSA), ‘‘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.’’ Also, DEA has
long 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, e.g.,
James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011),
pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826
and DEA’s regulations, Registrant 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 Registrant the opportunity to
refute the facts of which I take official notice,
Registrant 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. The Government also attached an identical
(but unverified) copy of the Suspension Order as an
exhibit to its Request for Final Agency Action. GX
3 (Suspension Order) to RFAA.
2 See https://dhp.virginiainteractive.org/Lookup/
Detail/0102204264. I take official notice pursuant to
the authority set forth supra in footnote 1.
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
9837
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 52 / Monday, March 18, 2019 / Notices
(4th Cir. 2012); see also Frederick Marsh
Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978) (‘‘State
authorization to dispense or otherwise
handle controlled substances is a
prerequisite to the issuance and
maintenance of a Federal controlled
substances registration.’’).
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 long held that revocation of a
practitioner’s registration is the
appropriate sanction whenever he is no
longer authorized to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the State
in which he engages in professional
practice. 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); Blanton, 43 FR
27616 (1978).
Moreover, because ‘‘the controlling
question’’ in a proceeding brought
under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is whether the
holder of a practitioner’s registration ‘‘is
currently authorized to handle
controlled substances in the [S]tate,’’
Hooper, 76 FR at 71371 (quoting Anne
Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847, 12848
(1997)), the Agency has also long held
that revocation is warranted even where
a practitioner has lost his state authority
by virtue of the State’s use of summary
process and the State has yet to provide
a hearing to challenge the suspension.
Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274
(2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR 27070,
27071 (1987). Thus, it is of no
consequence that the Virginia Board of
Medicine summarily suspended
Registrant’s state medical license.
What is consequential is my finding
that Registrant is no longer currently
authorized to dispense controlled
substances in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, the State in which he is
registered. Specifically, the Virginia
Board of Medicine’s decision to suspend
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Mar 15, 2019
Jkt 247001
Registrant’s medical license also means
that Registrant is currently without
authority to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of Virginia.
See, e.g., Va. Code Ann. §§ 54.1–2409.1
(2017) (felony to prescribe controlled
substances without a current valid
license); 54.1–2900 (2017); 54.1–3401
(2016). Accordingly, Registrant is not
entitled to maintain his DEA
registration, and I will therefore order
that his registration be revoked.
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), I order that DEA
Certificate of Registration No.
FS4850459, issued to Joel A. Smithers,
D.O., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I
further order that any pending
application of Joel A. Smithers to renew
or modify the above registration, or any
pending application of Joel A. Smithers
for any other DEA registration in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, be, and it
hereby is, denied. This Order is effective
April 17, 2019.
Dated: February 27, 2019.
Uttam Dhillon,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–05013 Filed 3–15–19; 8:45 am]
(2) Drug Enforcement Administration,
Attn: DEA Federal Register
Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette
Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Attorney General has delegated his
authority under the Controlled
Substances Act to the Administrator of
the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to
exercise all necessary functions with
respect to the promulgation and
implementation of 21 CFR part 1301,
incident to the registration of
manufacturers, distributors, dispensers,
importers, and exporters of controlled
substances (other than final orders in
connection with suspension, denial, or
revocation of registration) has been
redelegated to the Assistant
Administrator of the DEA Diversion
Control Division (‘‘Assistant
Administrator’’) pursuant to section 7 of
28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR
1301.34(a), this is notice that on January
04, 2019, Sharp (Bethlehem), LLC, 2400
Baglyos Circle, Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania 18020 applied to be
registered as an importer of the
following basic classes of controlled
substances:
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. DEA–392]
Importer of Controlled Substances
Application: Sharp (Bethlehem), LLC
ACTION:
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of
the affected basic classes, and
applicants therefore, may file written
comments on or objections to the
issuance of the proposed registration on
or before April 17, 2019. Such persons
may also file a written request for a
hearing on the application on or before
April 17, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be sent to: Drug Enforcement
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal
Register Representative/DPW, 8701
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia
22152. All requests for a hearing must
be sent to: Drug Enforcement
Administration, Attn: Administrator,
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield,
Virginia 22152. All requests for a
hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug
Enforcement Administration, Attn:
Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette
Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Controlled substance
Drug
code
Schedule
Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid .......
3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine.
Psilocybin .....................................
2010
7405
I
I
7437
I
The company plans to import the
listed controlled substances for clinical
trials. Approval of permit applications
will occur only when the registrant’s
activity is consistent with what is
authorized under to 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2).
Authorization will not extend to the
import of FDA approved or nonapproved finished dosage forms for
commercial sale.
Dated: March 5, 2019.
John J. Martin,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–05000 Filed 3–15–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
William A. Sanpablo, M.D.; Decision
and Order
On December 3, 2018, the Assistant
Administrator, Diversion Control
Division, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to William A. Sanpablo,
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9836-9837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05013]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Joel A. Smithers, D.O.; Decision and Order
On November 15, 2018, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion
Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order to Show Cause to Joel A. Smithers, D.O. (Registrant), of
Martinsville, Virginia. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of
Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration No. FS4850459 on the
ground that he ``has no state authority to handle controlled
substances.'' Government Exhibit (GX) 2 (Order to Show Cause) to
Government's Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), at 1 (citing 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). For the same reason, the Order also proposed the
denial of ``any applications for renewal or modification of such
registration and any applications for any other DEA registrations.''
Id.
With respect to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order
alleged that Registrant is the holder of Certificate of Registration
No. FS4850459, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense
controlled substances as a practitioner in schedules II through V, at
the registered address of 445 Commonwealth Blvd. East, Suite A,
Martinsville, Virginia. Id. The Order also alleged that this
registration does not expire until February 29, 2020. Id.
Regarding the substantive grounds for the proceeding, the Show
Cause Order alleged that on May 10, 2018, the Virginia Board of
Medicine issued ``an Order of Summary Suspension'' that suspended
Registrant's Virginia osteopathic medical license. Id. The Show Cause
Order alleged that, as a result, he is ``currently without authority to
handle controlled substances in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the
[S]tate in which [he is] registered with the DEA.'' Id. Based on his
``lack of authority to handle controlled substances in the Commonwealth
of Virginia,'' the Order asserted that ``DEA must revoke'' his
registration. Id. at 1-2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3); 21 CFR
1301.73(b)). Id.
The Show Cause Order notified Registrant of (1) his right to
request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement
in lieu of a hearing, (2) the procedure for electing either option, and
(3) the consequence for failing to elect either option. Id. at 2.
(citing 21 CFR 1301.43). 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)).
With respect to service, a Task Force Officer (TFO) in the Roanoke
Resident Office of DEA's Washington Field Division executed a
Declaration on February 4, 2019, stating that she ``personally served
Registrant with the'' Show Cause Order on November 20, 2018. GX 4
(Declaration of TFO) to RFAA, at 1.
On February 5, 2019, the Government forwarded its Request for Final
Agency Action and evidentiary record to my Office. In its Request, the
Government represents that more than 30 days have passed since
Registrant had been served with the Show Cause Order and that
``Registrant has not requested a hearing and has not otherwise
corresponded or communicated with DEA regarding the Order served on
him.'' RFAA, at 1. Based on the Government's representation and the
record, I find that more than 30 days have passed since the Show Cause
Order was served on Registrant, and he has neither requested a hearing
nor submitted a written statement in lieu of a hearing. See 21 CFR
1301.43(d). Accordingly, I find that Registrant has waived his right to
a hearing or to submit a written statement and issue this Decision and
Order based on relevant evidence submitted by the Government and the
findings below. See id. I make the following findings.
Findings of Fact
Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No.
FS4850459 pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled
substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner at the
registered address of 445 Commonwealth Blvd. East, Suite A,
Martinsville, Virginia. GX 1 (Certification of Registration Status) to
RFAA, at 1. This registration does not expire until February 29, 2020.
Id.
In addition, I take official notice of an ``Order of Summary
Suspension'' (Suspension Order) on the Virginia Board of Medicine's
website,\1\ which states that on May 10, 2018, the Executive Director
of the Virginia Board of Medicine entered an order that Registrant's
Virginia license to practice osteopathic medicine ``is SUSPENDED.''
Suspension Order, at 1. In its Suspension Order, the Virginia ``Board
conclude[d] that a substantial danger to public health or safety
warrants this action.'' Id. The Suspension Order also stated that it
would apply to Registrant's ``multistate licensure privilege, if any,
to practice osteopathic medicine in the Commonwealth of Virginia.'' Id.
Finally, the Suspension Order ordered ``that a hearing be convened
within a reasonable time of the date of entry of this Order to receive
and act upon evidence in this matter.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See https://www.dhp.virginia.gov/Notices/Medicine/0102204264/0102204264Order05102018.pdf. 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, Registrant 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 Registrant the
opportunity to refute the facts of which I take official notice,
Registrant 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. The Government also attached an identical (but
unverified) copy of the Suspension Order as an exhibit to its
Request for Final Agency Action. GX 3 (Suspension Order) to RFAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also take official notice of the results of a search of the
Virginia Board of Medicine's license verification web page showing
that, as of the date of this Decision, Registrant's Virginia medical
license remains suspended.\2\ There is no evidence in the record that
the Virginia Board of Medicine ever issued a superseding order or
decision ending the suspension of Registrant's medical license.
Accordingly, I find that Registrant currently does not possess a
license to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State
in which he is registered with the DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See https://dhp.virginiainteractive.org/Lookup/Detail/0102204264. I take official notice pursuant to the authority set
forth supra in footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 of the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA), ``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.'' Also, DEA
has long 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, e.g., James L. Hooper,
76 FR 71371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826
[[Page 9837]]
(4th Cir. 2012); see also Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978)
(``State authorization to dispense or otherwise handle controlled
substances is a prerequisite to the issuance and maintenance of a
Federal controlled substances registration.'').
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 long held that revocation of a
practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is
no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws
of the State in which he engages in professional practice. 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); Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978).
Moreover, because ``the controlling question'' in a proceeding
brought under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is whether the holder of a
practitioner's registration ``is currently authorized to handle
controlled substances in the [S]tate,'' Hooper, 76 FR at 71371 (quoting
Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847, 12848 (1997)), the Agency has also long
held that revocation is warranted even where a practitioner has lost
his state authority by virtue of the State's use of summary process and
the State has yet to provide a hearing to challenge the suspension.
Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR
27070, 27071 (1987). Thus, it is of no consequence that the Virginia
Board of Medicine summarily suspended Registrant's state medical
license.
What is consequential is my finding that Registrant is no longer
currently authorized to dispense controlled substances in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the State in which he is registered.
Specifically, the Virginia Board of Medicine's decision to suspend
Registrant's medical license also means that Registrant is currently
without authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of
Virginia. See, e.g., Va. Code Ann. Sec. Sec. 54.1-2409.1 (2017)
(felony to prescribe controlled substances without a current valid
license); 54.1-2900 (2017); 54.1-3401 (2016). Accordingly, Registrant
is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration, and I will therefore
order that his registration be revoked.
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), I order that DEA Certificate of
Registration No. FS4850459, issued to Joel A. Smithers, D.O., be, and
it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of
Joel A. Smithers to renew or modify the above registration, or any
pending application of Joel A. Smithers for any other DEA registration
in the Commonwealth of Virginia, be, and it hereby is, denied. This
Order is effective April 17, 2019.
Dated: February 27, 2019.
Uttam Dhillon,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-05013 Filed 3-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P