82 FR 34552 - Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D.; Decision and Order

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 141 (July 25, 2017)

Page Range		34552-34553
FR Document		2017-15494
Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2017)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34552-34553]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[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
34552 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 25, 2017 / Notices

On May 30, 2012, BSTC filed its asserted that Registrant’s registration Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink,
original notification pursuant to Section was subject to revocation based on his 284 F.3d 1007, 1017–18 (9th Cir. 2002);
6(a) of the Act. The Department of lack of state authority. Id. at 2. Snyder, et al. v. Alternate Energy Inc.,
Justice published a notice in the Federal The Government attempted to serve 857 N.Y.S. 2d 442, 447–449 (N.Y. Civ.
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the the Order to Show Cause on Registrant Ct. 2008); In re International Telemedia
Act on June 18, 2012 (77 FR 36292). through a variety of ways. These Associates, Inc., 245 B.R. 713, 721–22
The last notification was filed with included: (1) Mailing by first class mail (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2000); see also Richard
the Department on October 5, 2012. A addressed to him at his registered C. Quigley, 79 FR 50945 (2014); Emilio
notice was published in the Federal address; (2) a Diversion Investigator (DI) Luna, 77 FR 4829, 4830 (2012). Given
Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the going to his registered address, where he the multiple attempts by the
Act on November 6, 2012 (77 FR 66635). was told that Registrant ‘‘had not Government to serve the Show Cause
worked there for a very long time’’ and Order by conventional means, including
Patricia A. Brink, his current location was unknown; (3) by mailing it to the address where he
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust the DI going to Registrant’s purported
Division.
receives his property tax bills, I
residence on Laird Drive in Bristol, conclude that the Government’s use of
[FR Doc. 2017–15584 Filed 7–24–17; 8:45 am] Connecticut where no one answered the email satisfies its obligation with
BILLING CODE P door; 3 (4) mailing the Show Cause respect to service of the Show Cause
Order by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Order. See, e.g., Jones v. Flowers, 547
Requested, addressed to him at his U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (due process does
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE registered address; (5) mailing the Show not require actual notice but only
Cause Order by Certified Mail, Return ‘‘‘notice reasonably calculated, under all
Drug Enforcement Administration
Receipt Requested, to his purported the circumstances, to apprise interested
Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D.; Decision residence address; (6) mailing the Show parties of the pendency of the action
and Order Cause Order by Certified Mail, Return and afford them an opportunity to
Receipt Requested, to a second property present their objections.’ ’’ Id. (quoting
On February 10, 2017, the Assistant in Bristol, Connecticut, which is Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &
Administrator, Division of Diversion purportedly owned by Registrant; (7) Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)).
Control, Drug Enforcement mailing the Show Cause Order by On May 8, 2017, the Government
Administration, issued an Order to Certified Mail, Return Receipt submitted a Request for Final Agency
Show Cause to Mohammed S. Aljanaby, Requested, to an address in New York Action. Therein, it represents that
M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant),1 of West State where he receives his property tax Registrant did not request a hearing or
Hartford, Connecticut. Show Cause bill from the Town of Bristol; and (8) submit a written statement while
Order, at 1. The Show Cause Order email sent to an address obtained from waiving his right to a hearing. The
proposed the revocation of Registrant’s a public access database maintained by Government thus seeks a final order
DEA Certificate of Registration, on the Thomson Reuters, which also revoking Registrant’s registration.
ground that he does not have authority corresponds to the email address I deny the Government’s Request for
to handle controlled substances in Registrant provided to the Connecticut an Order of Revocation. As support for
Connecticut, the State in which he is Board. GX 3, at 1–2 (DI Declaration). the proposed revocation, the
registered with DEA. Id. The first mailing was accomplished on Government submitted a copy of the
As to the Agency’s jurisdiction, the February 10, 2017; the other attempts at Board’s Order revoking Registrant’s state
Show Cause Order alleged that service were made on February 22–23, license, which states that it was actually
Registrant possesses a practitioner’s 2017. Id.; see also GX 4 (Declaration of issued on the ‘‘15th day of November,
registration for schedules II through V, Chief Counsel Analyst). 2016.’’ GX 3, Appendix C, at 9.
and that his registered address is 74 With the exception of the mailing to
However, as noted above, the Show
Park Road, West Hartford, Connecticut. his registered address (where he no
Cause Order alleges that the Board
Id. The Order further alleged that longer worked), each of the other
revoked his state license ‘‘[o]n
Registrant’s registration ‘‘expires by its mailings was returned to the
November 15, 2017.’’ See GX 2, at 1. I
own terms on June 30, 2017.’’ Id. Government and marked as
need not decide, however, whether this
As to the substantive ground for the undelivered. GX 3, at 2. The
typographical error renders the Show
proposed action, the Show Cause Order Government represents, however, that
Cause Order defective as this case is
alleged that ‘‘[o]n November 15, 2017, the attempt to email the Show Cause
now moot.4
the State of Connecticut Medical Order did not generate an error or
As noted above, the Show Cause
Examining Board revoked [his] license undeliverable message.
Of note, several courts have held that Order alleges that Registrant’s
to practice medicine due to [his] (1)
the emailing of process can, depending registration was due to expire on June
inappropriate physical and/or sexual
on the facts and circumstances, satisfy 30, 2017. Id. According to the
conduct with one or more female
due process, especially where service by registration records of the Agency of
patients; and (2) false statements on
[his] Connecticut medical license conventional means is impracticable 4 Had Registrant requested a hearing, the
renewal application.’’ Id. (emphasis because a person secretes himself. See Government could have corrected its error as to the
added). The Show Cause Order also date of the Board’s Order by motion. And by
alleged that the Board’s ‘‘order remains and the consequence of failing to elect either offering the Board’s Order to support a motion for
option. Show Cause Order, at 2. The Order also summary disposition, the Government would have
in effect.’’ Id.2 The Order further
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

notified Registrant of his right to submit a refuted any claim of prejudice. Cf. United States v.
Corrective Action Plan. Id. at 2–3 (citing 21 U.S.C. Cina, 699 F.2d 853, 857 (7th Cir. 1983) (holding in
1 Notwithstanding that Dr. Aljanaby is now an ex- 824(c)(2)(C)). criminal prosecution that trial court’s amendment
registrant, he is referred to as Registrant throughout 3 According to the Connecticut Medical of the alleged commencement date of conspiracy
this Decision. Examining Board’s Order, when the Board charge by two years did not ‘‘affect[] a ‘material
2 The Show Cause Order also notified Registrant attempted to served Registrant at this address its element’ of the . . . charge, causing prejudice to the
of his right to request a hearing or to submit a mailing was returned and marked: ‘‘Return to defendant’’). Furthermore, as long as the Board’s
written statement while waiving his right to a sender, No Such Street, Unable to Forward.’’ GX 3, Order was still in effect, the date of its Order would
hearing, the procedure for electing either option, Appendix C, at 3. not be material.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Jul 24, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM 25JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 25, 2017 / Notices 34553

which I take official notice,5 Registrant’s control technology, at both Logansport ACTION: Solicitation of nominations to
registration did, in fact, expire on June kilns. In addition, the proposed serve on the Task Force on
30, 2017. Moreover, Registrant has not agreement reduces the allowable NOX Apprenticeship Expansion.
filed a renewal application, whether emissions rate at both kilns. Finally, the
timely or not. proposed Third Modification notes that SUMMARY: The Secretary of Labor invites
It is well settled that ‘‘[i]f a registrant Essroc is now known as Lehigh Hanson interested persons to submit
has not submitted a timely renewal ECC. nominations for individuals to serve on
application prior to the expiration date, The publication of this notice opens the Task Force on Apprenticeship
then the registration expires and there is a period for public comment on the Expansion (hereinafter ‘‘the Task Force’’
nothing to revoke.’’ Ronald J. Riegel, 63 Third Modification. Comments should or ‘‘the panel’’), a non-discretionary
FR 67132, 67133 (1998); see also be addressed to the Assistant Attorney federal advisory committee authorized
William W. Nucklos, 73 FR 34330 General, Environment and Natural pursuant to section 8 of Executive Order
(2008). Furthermore, because Registrant Resources Division, and should refer to 13801, entitled ‘‘Expanding
did not file a renewal application, there United States v. Essroc Cement Corp., Apprenticeships in America’’
is no application to act upon. See D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–2–1–09608. All (hereinafter ‘‘the Executive Order’’),
Nucklos, 73 FR at 34330. Accordingly, comments must be submitted no later which was issued on June 15, 2017 (82
because there is neither a registration, than thirty (30) days after the FR 28229) and which directed the
nor an application, to act upon, I hold publication date of this notice. Secretary of Labor to establish and chair
that this case is now moot. Comments may be submitted either by such a panel in the Department of
email or by mail: Labor.
Order
DATES: If transmitted by mail,
Pursuant to the authority vested in me To submit nominations for individuals to serve on
Send them to:
by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR comments:
the Task Force must be postmarked by
0.100(b), I order that the Order to Show August 8, 2017. Alternatively, if Task
By email ...... pubcomment-ees.enrd@
Cause issued to Mohammed S. Force nominations are submitted
usdoj.gov.
Aljanaby, M.D., be, and it hereby is, By mail ........ Assistant Attorney General, electronically or by hand delivery, such
dismissed. U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box nominations must be received by
Dated: July 14, 2017. 7611, Washington, DC August 8, 2017.
Chuck Rosenberg, 20044–7611.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons may
Acting Administrator. submit Task Force nominations,
During the public comment period,
[FR Doc. 2017–15494 Filed 7–24–17; 8:45 am] including relevant attachments, through
the Third Modification may be
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P any of the following methods:
examined and downloaded at this
• Electronically: Send to:
Justice Department Web site: https://
Apprenticeshiptaskforce@dol.gov (and
www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE please specify in the email subject line,
We will provide a paper copy of the
‘‘Nominations for Task Force on
Notice of Lodging of Proposed Third Third Modification to Consent Decree
Apprenticeship Expansion’’).
Modification to Consent Decree Under upon written request and payment of • Mail, express delivery, hand
the Clean Air Act reproduction costs. Please mail your delivery, messenger service, or courier
request and payment to: Consent Decree service: Submit one copy of the
On July 19, 2017, the United States Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box
lodged a proposed Third Modification documents listed above to the following
7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611. address: U.S. Department of Labor,
to the Consent Decree (‘‘Third Please enclose a check or money order
Modification’’) with the United States Employment and Training
for $3.25 (25 cents per page
District Court for the Western District of Administration, Office of
reproduction cost) payable to the United
Pennsylvania in the lawsuit entitled Apprenticeship, Task Force on
States Treasury. For a complete copy of
United States, et al. v. Essroc Cement Apprenticeship Expansion, Room C–
the original Consent Decree, the prior
Corp., Civil No. 2:11–cv–01650. 5321, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
approved modification, and the
The Court approved the original Washington, DC 20210.
proposed Third Modification (without
Consent Decree in 2012, resolving FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
exhibits and signature pages), the cost is
claims under the Clean Air Act against $20.00. any questions concerning the Task
six Essroc cement facilities in three Force nomination process, please
states and Puerto Rico. The proposed Randall M. Stone, contact Ms. Natalie S. Linton, Program
Third Modification affects only Acting Assistant Section Chief, Analyst, Employment and Training
Defendant’s Logansport facility in Environmental Enforcement Section, Administration, Office of
Environment and Natural Resources Division. Apprenticeship, at Linton.Natalie.S.@
Logansport, Indiana. The proposed
Third Modification reworks [FR Doc. 2017–15541 Filed 7–24–17; 8:45 am] dol.gov, telephone (202) 693–3592 (this
requirements for controlling emissions BILLING CODE 4410–15–P is not a toll-free number).
of nitrogen oxides, known as NOX, at SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Task
Logansport. Under the proposed Force is being established in accordance
agreement, Essroc will no longer be DEPARTMENT OF LABOR with the provisions of the Federal
required to install a NOX control Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

technology known as SNCR (which Employment and Training amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. The Task
stands for selective non-catalytic Administration Force is charged with the mission of
reduction) at Logansport Kiln 2. Instead, Nominations for the Task Force on identifying strategies and proposals to
Essroc will be required to install water Apprenticeship Expansion promote apprenticeships, especially in
injection technology, another NOX sectors where apprenticeship programs
AGENCY:Employment and Training are insufficient. Upon completion of
5 See 5 U.S.C. 556(e); 21 CFR 1316.59(e). Administration, Labor. this assignment, the Task Force shall

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:30 Jul 24, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM 25JYN1
Document Created: 2018-10-24 11:21:34
Document Modified: 2018-10-24 11:21:34
Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
FR Citation		82 FR 34552
82 FR 34552 - Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D.; Decision and Order

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEDrug Enforcement Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 141 (July 25, 2017)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
