[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 161 (Wednesday, August 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51065-51068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18082]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


David Mwebe, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On August 17, 2018, a former Acting Administrator of the Drug 
Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or Government) issued an 
Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration to David 
Mwebe, M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant). Government's Request for Final 
Agency Action Exhibit (hereinafter, RFAAX) 2, at 1 (Order to Show Cause 
and Immediate Suspension Order (hereinafter, collectively OSC)). The 
OSC informed Registrant of the immediate suspension of his DEA 
Certificate of Registration BM9925388 pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), 
``because [his] continued registration constitute[d] an imminent danger 
to the public health and safety.'' Id.
    The substantive ground for the proceeding, as alleged in the OSC, 
is that Registrant's ``continued registration is inconsistent with the 
public interest, as that term is defined in 21 U.S.C. 823(f).'' Id. 
Specifically, the OSC alleges that Registrant issued at least 42 
fraudulent prescriptions for controlled substances, either to himself 
using various aliases, or to other individuals, which Registrant filled 
himself in violation of 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(3), 21 CFR 1306.04(a), and 
Nebraska law. Id. at 2 (citing Neb. Rev. St. Sec.  28-418(1)(c) (It is 
unlawful to ``acquire or obtain or to attempt to acquire or obtain 
possession of a controlled substance by theft, misrepresentation, 
fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge.'')).
    In issuing the OSC, which immediately suspended the registration, 
the former Acting Administrator concluded that Registrant's ``continued 
registration is inconsistent with the public interest'' based on a 
preliminary finding that Registrant ``issued prescriptions for 
controlled substances that [Registrant] knew were without a legitimate 
medical purpose and were outside the course of professional practice'' 
and that were ``indicative of [Registrant's] general illegitimate 
practice of prescribing controlled substances in violation of State and 
Federal laws.'' Id. at 7. Citing 21 U.S.C. 824(d), he also made the 
preliminary finding that Registrant's ``continued registration during 
the pendency of the proceedings would constitute an imminent danger to 
the public health or safety because of the substantial likelihood that 
[Registrant] will continue to unlawfully prescribe controlled 
substances, thereby allowing the diversion of controlled substances 
unless [Registrant's] DEA COR is suspended.'' Id. The former Acting 
Administrator authorized the DEA Special Agents and Diversion 
Investigators serving the OSC on Registrant to place under seal or 
remove for safekeeping all controlled substances Registrant possessed 
pursuant to the immediately suspended registration. Id. (citing 21 
U.S.C. 824(f) and 21 CFR 1301.36(f)). The former Acting Administrator 
also directed those DEA employees to take possession of Registrant's 
Certificate of Registration BM9925388 \1\ and any unused prescription 
forms. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The OSC identified Registrant's DEA registration number as 
BW9925388. RFAAX, at 1. The Government has stated that this was a 
scrivener's error, and the correct number for Registrant's DEA 
registration, which the Government seeks to revoke, is BM9925388. 
RFAA, at 2 n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Declaration of a DEA Special Agent from the 
Philadelphia Field Division, the DEA Special Agent personally served 
the OSC on Registrant on August 17, 2018. RFAAX 3 (Declaration of 
Special Agent A). A DEA Diversion Investigator also stated that 
Registrant called her on August 17, 2018, regarding questions he had 
about the OSC he had received. RFAAX 4, at 2 (Declaration of DEA 
Diversion Investigator). Based on the Special Agent's Declaration, the 
Diversion Investigator's Declaration, and my review of the record, I 
find that the Government accomplished service of the OSC on Registrant 
on August 17, 2018.
    On April 23, 2019, the Government forwarded a Request for Final 
Agency Action, along with the evidentiary record for this matter, to my 
office.\2\ The OSC notified Registrant of his right to request a 
hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement while 
waiving his right to a hearing, the procedures for electing each 
option, and the consequences for failing to elect either option. Id. at 
7-8 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43(c)). I find that more than thirty days have 
now passed since the Government accomplished service of the OSC. I 
further find, based on the Government's written representations, that 
neither Registrant, nor anyone purporting to represent the Registrant, 
requested a hearing, or submitted a written statement while waiving 
Registrant's right to a hearing. Accordingly, I find that Registrant 
has waived the right to a hearing and the right to submit a written 
statement. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). I, therefore, issue this Decision and 
Order based on the record submitted by the Government, which 
constitutes the entire record before me. 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the RFAA, the Government alleged that, in addition to the 
allegations in the OSC, Registrant lacks ``authority to handle 
controlled substances in the state of Nebraska, the state where he 
is registered with the DEA.'' RFAA at 1. I find it unnecessary to 
address this allegation as I have found that Registrant's 
registration should be revoked based on the allegations from the 
OSC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having considered the record in its entirety, I find that the 
record establishes, by substantial evidence, that Registrant committed 
acts rendering his continued registration inconsistent with the public 
interest. I also find that Registrant has submitted no evidence that he 
accepts responsibility for his failures to meet the responsibilities of 
a registrant nor presented any evidence of mitigation or remedial 
measures. Accordingly, I conclude that the appropriate sanctions are 
(1) for Registrant's DEA registration to be revoked; and (2) for any 
pending application by Registrant to be denied.
    Based on the representations of the Government in its RFAA, I make 
the following findings of fact.

[[Page 51066]]

I. Findings of Fact

A. Registrant's DEA Registration

    Registrant is registered with the DEA as a practitioner in 
schedules II through V under DEA Certificate of Registration No. 
BM9925388, at 106 East Wayne Street, P.O. Box 8, Randolph, NE 68771. 
RFAAX 1 (Registrant's Certificate of Registration). This registration 
expires on January 31, 2021. Id. The registration was suspended 
pursuant to the Immediate Suspension Order dated August 17, 2018. OSC, 
at 7.

B. The Investigation of Registrant

    DEA investigators began an investigation into Registrant in July 
2017 after receiving information that Registrant was selling 
prescriptions for oxycodone and hydrocodone at a gentleman's club. 
RFAAX 5 (Declaration of Special Agent B), at 1.
    On November 6, 2017, the Nebraska State Patrol (hereinafter, NSP) 
notified a DEA Special Agent (hereinafter, Special Agent B) that the 
Norfolk (Nebraska) Police Department (hereinafter, NPD) was summoned to 
a pharmacy in Norfolk, Nebraska (hereinafter, Pharmacy A) regarding a 
fraudulent prescription. Id. A man had attempted to fill a prescription 
for Adderall \3\ using a driver's license bearing the name ``Joshua 
Masembe.'' Id. The NPD informed Special Agent B that they had run a 
check of the driver's license number for ``Joshua Masembe'' and 
discovered that it was associated with Registrant's name, David Mwebe; 
Registrant's date of birth; and Registrant's home address.\4\ Id. at 1-
2. NPD also informed Special Agent B that Pharmacy A's records showed 
that ``Joshua Masembe'' had also filled a prescription for Adderall in 
July 2017. Id. at 2. Special Agent B obtained from NSP copies of the 
two Adderall prescriptions issued to ``Joshua Masembe.'' Id., App. A. 
The prescriptions were issued by Registrant. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Amphetamine mixture products, which are schedule II 
controlled substances pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.12(d)(1), are marketed 
under the brand name ``Adderall,'' and methylphenidate, a schedule 
II controlled substance pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.12(d)(4), is 
marketed under the brand name ``Ritalin.'' RFAA, at 3 (citing 
National Drug Code Directory, available at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ndc/index.cfm).
    \4\ The Government included the license number, date of birth, 
and address listed on the driver's license for ``Joshua Masembe.'' I 
am not listing that information publicly in this Decision, because 
they match Registrant's actual license number, date of birth, and 
home address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Interviews With Registrant
    On May 30, 2018, Special Agent B, an investigator from the Nebraska 
Health Department, and an NSP investigator (hereinafter, the 
Investigators) interviewed Registrant at his DEA registered address. 
Id. at 2. The interview was recorded. Id. During the interview, 
Registrant admitted, inter alia, that he had written fraudulent 
prescriptions, RFAAX 4, App. A (transcript of recorded interview), at 
72; taken Adderall that Registrant prescribed to ``Joshua Masembe'' and 
lied to DEA investigators about doing so, id. at 57, 66-67; filled 
antihypertension, Adderall, and Ritalin prescriptions that were written 
for ``Peter Senteza,'' id. at 55-56; and stolen prescriptions because 
he could not fill the prescriptions on a monthly basis by himself, id. 
at 68. Registrant told the investigators that he sent his driver's 
license to ``Peter Senteza'' to be altered, so he could pick up 
prescriptions written for Registrant's aliases. Id. at 57-59. 
Registrant stated that ``Peter Senteza'' altered Registrant's driver's 
license to create fake driver's licenses by swapping Registrant's name 
with the aliases' name. Id. Registrant told the investigators that 
``Peter Senteza'' lived in Pittsburgh. Id. at 57.
    Later in the interview, Registrant invited the Investigators to his 
residence. RFAAX 5, at 2. At his residence, Registrant gave the 
Investigators three altered Nebraska driver's licenses. Id. Two of the 
licenses bore the name ``Sam Kajubi.'' Id. One of these licenses was 
expired. Id. The third license bore the name ``Joshua Masembe.'' Id. at 
3. All three licenses had Registrant's actual license number, date of 
birth, and home address. Id. at 2-3. They also contained Registrant's 
picture and identical physical descriptors. Id. at 3; see RFAAX 5, 
Appxs. C and D (copies of the three altered Nebraska driver's 
licenses).
    Registrant also provided the Investigators with a box of empty 
prescription bottles. RFAAX 5, at 3. The box contained two bottles of 
alprazolam and two bottles of methylphenidate in the name of ``Peter 
Senteza,'' and three bottles of alprazolam, two bottles of 
methylphenidate, and one bottle of Adderall in the name of ``Sam 
Kajubi.'' Id.; RFAAX 5, Appxs. E and F (copies of photographs of the 
empty bottles). The labels on the bottles listed Registrant as the 
prescriber. RFAAX 5, Appxs. E and F.
    On June 6, 2018, DEA Special Agent B and the Diversion Investigator 
met with Registrant at the Nebraska State Patrol Troop B Headquarters. 
RFAAX 4, at 2. According to the Diversion Investigator, Registrant 
stated that ``he used Ritalin and Adderall to help him work through 
long hours'' and ``used alprazolam to take `power naps' during his long 
shifts.'' Id. The Diversion Investigator asked Registrant to 
voluntarily surrender his DEA Registration. Id. Registrant declined. 
Id.
2. Administrative Subpoenas
    On June 15, 2018, DEA served administrative subpoenas on U-Save 
Pharmacy in Norfolk, Nebraska (hereinafter, U-Save Norfolk) and U-Save 
Pharmacy in Wayne, Nebraska (hereinafter, U-Save Wayne). RFAAX 5, at 3. 
The U-Save Norfolk administrative subpoena sought information on 
``Peter Senteza,'' including a patient summary of all prescriptions 
prescribed to ``Peter Senteza.'' Id. at App. G. The U-Save Wayne 
administrative subpoena sought information on ``Sam Kajubi,'' including 
a patient summary of all prescriptions prescribed to ``Sam Kajubi.'' 
Id. at App. H.
    U-Save Norfolk provided DEA with copies of sixteen prescriptions 
for controlled substances issued by Registrant to ``Peter Senteza'' and 
a patient profile for ``Peter Senteza'' in response to the 
administrative subpoena. Id. at Appxs. I and K. The U-Save Norfolk 
records show that Registrant issued, at a minimum, the following 
prescriptions to ``Peter Senteza:'' (1) Two prescriptions for 30 dosage 
units of Adderall 30 mg; (2) six prescriptions for 60 dosage units of 
methylphenidate 20 mg; and (3) eight prescriptions for 60 dosage units 
of alprazolam 1mg.\5\ Id at App. I. The prescription labels U-Save 
Norfolk provided for the ``Peter Senteza'' prescriptions listed 
Registrant's home address in Osmond, Nebraska,\6\ id. at 1, 2, 8, 15, 
16, and U-Save Norfolk's patient profile for ``Peter Senteza'' also 
lists Registrant's home address in Osmond, Nebraska, id. at App. K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Alprazolam is a schedule IV controlled substance pursuant to 
21 CFR 1308.14(c)(2).
    \6\ Registrant did not write an address for ``Peter Senteza'' on 
the hard copies of the prescriptions. RFAAX 5, App. I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    U-Save Wayne provided DEA with copies of twenty-four prescriptions 
for controlled substances issued by Registrant to ``Sam Kajubi'' and a 
patient profile for ``Sam Kajubi'' in response to the administrative 
subpoena. Id. at Appxs. J and L. The U-Save Wayne records show that 
Registrant issued, at a minimum, the following twenty-four 
prescriptions for controlled substances to ``Sam Kajubi:'' (1) Three 
prescriptions for 60 dosage units of Adderall 30 mg; (2) nine

[[Page 51067]]

prescriptions for 60 dosage units of methylphenidate 20 mg; (3) one 
prescription for 30 dosage units of methylphenidate 20 mg; and (4) 
eleven prescriptions for 60 dosage units of alprazolam 1 mg. Id. at 
App. J. U-Save Wayne's patient profile for ``Sam Kajubi'' lists 
Registrant's home address in Osmond, Nebraska and the same date of 
birth as Registrant.\7\ Id. at App. L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Registrant only wrote an address for ``Sam Kajubi'' on one 
of the twenty-four prescriptions U-Save Wayne produced to the 
Agency. Registrant wrote his own home address as ``Sam Kajubi's'' 
address on the prescription. RFAAX 5, at App. J, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Government's Allegations

    The Government has alleged that on at least forty-two occasions, 
between July 10, 2014 and March 8, 2018, Registrant ``issued fraudulent 
prescriptions for controlled substances to either [him]self using 
various aliases, or to other individuals which [Registrant] filled.'' 
OSC, at 2. Specifically, the Government alleged that Registrant issued 
prescriptions for controlled substances that ``were not for a 
legitimate medical purpose and that were not issued in the usual course 
of professional practice because [Registrant] issued these 
prescriptions to [him]self under various aliases, including Sam Kajubi 
and Joshua Masembe; and impersonated Peter Senteza.'' Id.
    As discussed above, the pharmacy records from U-Save Wayne, U-Save 
Norfolk, and Pharmacy A show that Registrant issued at least forty-two 
prescriptions for controlled substances to ``Sam Kajubi,'' ``Joshua 
Masembe,'' and ``Peter Senteza.'' The U-Save patient profiles for ``Sam 
Kajubi'' and ``Peter Senteza'' list Registrant's home address in 
Osmond, Nebraska, \8\ and the person filling the controlled substance 
prescriptions for ``Joshua Masembe'' at Pharmacy A used an altered 
driver's license bearing Registrant's license number, home address, and 
date of birth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Registrant told the Investigators that ``Peter Senteza'' 
lived in Pittsburgh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Registrant admitted to the Investigators that he filled 
prescriptions that he wrote for controlled substances under the names 
``Joshua Masembe'' and ``Peter Senteza.'' He told the Investigators 
that he sent his driver's license to ``Peter Senteza'' to be altered so 
that Registrant could fill prescriptions that he wrote for his aliases. 
Registrant provided three of these altered licenses in the names of 
``Joshua Masembe'' and ``Sam Kajubi'' to the Investigators. Registrant 
also had empty prescription bottles for Adderall, alprazolam, and 
methylphenidate in the names of ``Sam Kajubi'' and ``Peter Senteza'' in 
his home. Registrant further admitted that he wrote fraudulent 
prescriptions, stole prescriptions because he could not fill the 
prescriptions on a monthly basis by himself, and used methylphenidate 
and Adderall to help him work and alprazolam to take ``power naps'' 
during his work shifts.
    Based on the documentary evidence and Registrant's own admissions, 
I find that the Government has proven by substantial evidence that 
Registrant issued and filled controlled substance prescriptions under 
the aliases of ``Sam Kajubi'' and ``Joshua Masembe'' for personal use 
and that he issued and filled prescriptions using the name ``Peter 
Senteza'' for his personal use.

II. Discussion

    Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), ``[a] registration . . . 
to . . . distribute[ ] or dispense a controlled substance . . . may be 
suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the 
registrant . . . has committed such acts as would render his 
registration under section 823 of this title inconsistent with the 
public interest as determined under such section.'' 21 U.S.C. 
824(a)(4). In the case of a ``practitioner,'' which is defined in 21 
U.S.C. 802(21) to include a ``physician,'' Congress directed the 
Attorney General to consider the following factors in making the public 
interest determination:
    (1) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or 
professional disciplinary authority.
    (2) The [registrant]'s experience in dispensing . . . controlled 
substances.
    (3) The [registrant]'s conviction record under Federal or State 
laws relating to the . . . distribution[ ] or dispensing of controlled 
substances.
    (4) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws 
relating to controlled substances.
    (5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and 
safety.
    21 U.S.C. 823(f). These factors are considered in the disjunctive. 
Robert A. Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15,227, 15,230 (2003).
    According to Agency decisions, I ``may rely on any one or a 
combination of factors and may give each factor the weight [I] deem[ ] 
appropriate in determining whether'' to revoke a registration. Id.; see 
also Jones Total Health Care Pharm., LLC v. Drug Enf't Admin., 881 F.3d 
823, 830 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Akhtar-Zaidi v. Drug Enf't Admin., 
841 F.3d 707, 711 (6th Cir. 2016); MacKay v. Drug Enf't Admin., 664 
F.3d 808, 816 (10th Cir. 2011); Volkman v. Drug Enf't Admin., 567 F.3d 
215, 222 (6th Cir. 2009); Hoxie v. Drug Enf't Admin., 419 F.3d 477, 482 
(6th Cir. 2005). Moreover, while I am required to consider each of the 
factors, I ``need not make explicit findings as to each one.'' MacKay, 
664 F.3d at 816 (quoting Volkman, 567 F.3d at 222); see also Hoxie, 419 
F.3d at 482. ``In short, . . . the Agency is not required to 
mechanically count up the factors and determine how many favor the 
Government and how many favor the registrant. Rather, it is an inquiry 
which focuses on protecting the public interest; what matters is the 
seriousness of the registrant's misconduct.'' Jayam Krishna-Iyer, M.D., 
74 FR 459, 462 (2009). Accordingly, findings under a single factor can 
support the revocation of a registration. MacKay, 664 F.3d at 821.
    The Government has the burden of proving that the requirements for 
revocation of a DEA registration in 21 U.S.C. 824(a) are satisfied. 21 
CFR 1301.44(e). When the Government has met its prima facie case, the 
burden then shifts to the respondent to show that revoking registration 
would not be appropriate, given the totality of the facts and 
circumstances on the record. Med. Shoppe-Jonesborough, 73 FR 364, 387 
(2008).
    In this matter, while I have considered all of the Factors, the 
Government's evidence in support of its prima facie case is confined to 
Factors Two and Four.\9\ I find the Government has satisfied its prima 
facie burden of showing that Registrant's continued registration would 
be ``inconsistent with the public interest.'' 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In the RFAA, the Government alleged and provided evidence 
that the state of Nebraska has revoked Registrant's medical license. 
RFAA at 1, 9-10, 14-15; RFAAX 4, at Appxs. B and C. I am not 
considering this evidence under Factor One, because the Government 
did not notice the issue in the OSC, and I find it unnecessary to 
reach because Factors Two and Four demonstrate strongly that 
Registrant's continued registration would be inconsistent with the 
public interest.
    As to Factor Three, there is no evidence in the record that 
Registrant has a ``conviction record under Federal or State laws 
relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of 
controlled substances.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(f)(3). However, as Agency 
cases have noted, there are a number of reasons why a person who has 
engaged in criminal misconduct may never have been convicted of an 
offense under this factor, let alone prosecuted for one. Dewey C. 
MacKay, M.D., 75 FR 49,956, 49,973 (2010). Agency cases have 
therefore held that ``the absence of such a conviction is of 
considerably less consequence in the public interest inquiry'' and 
is therefore not dispositive. Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51068]]

A. Factors Two and/or Four--The Registrant's Experience in Dispensing 
Controlled Substances and Compliance With Applicable Laws Related to 
Controlled Substances

    The Government has alleged that Registrant violated federal and 
state laws related to controlled substances when, ``on forty-two 
occasions, [Registrant] issued fraudulent prescriptions for controlled 
substances to himself by using various aliases, or to other individuals 
that he filled himself.'' RFAA, at 11-14.
    Under the CSA, ``[i]t shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or 
intentionally to acquire or obtain possession of a controlled substance 
by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge.'' 21 
U.S.C. 843(a)(3). Similarly, under Nebraska state law, it is unlawful 
``to acquire or obtain or to attempt to acquire or obtain possession of 
a controlled substance by theft, misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, 
deception, or subterfuge.'' Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec.  28-418(1)(c)(2016). I 
find that the Government has established based on uncontroverted 
evidence that by knowingly issuing controlled substance prescriptions 
to aliases and other individuals that he filled himself using 
fraudulent identification documents Registrant violated 21 U.S.C. 
843(a)(3) and Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec.  28-418(1)(c).
    I also find that the record establishes by substantial evidence 
that Registrant violated 21 CFR 1306.04(a). Under Sec.  1306.04, a 
lawful prescription for controlled substances is one that is ``issued 
for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting 
in the usual course of his professional practice.'' 21 CFR 1306.04(a). 
A practitioner must establish and maintain a legitimate doctor-patient 
relationship in order to act ``in the usual course of . . . 
professional practice'' and to issue a prescription for a ``legitimate 
medical purpose'' under the CSA. Ralph J. Chambers, 79 FR 4962, 4970 
(2014) (citing Paul H. Volkman, 73 FR 30,629, 30,642 (2008), pet. for 
rev. denied Volkman v. Drug Enf't Admin., 567 F.3d 215, 223-24 (6th 
Cir. 2009)); see also U.S. v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122, 142-43 (1975) 
(noting that evidence established that the physician exceeded the 
bounds of professional practice, when ``he gave inadequate physical 
examinations or none at all,'' ``ignored the results of the tests he 
did make,'' and ``took no precautions against . . . misuse and 
diversion''). Agency decisions have demonstrated that in order for a 
physician to utilize his registration to dispense controlled 
substances, there must be a ``valid physician-patient relationship'' 
and that ``[l]egally, there is absolutely no difference between the 
sale of an illicit drug on the street and the illicit dispensing of a 
licit drug by means of a physician's prescription.'' Mario Avello, M.D. 
70 FR 11,695, 11,697 (2005) (citing Mark Wade, M.D., 69 FR 7018 (2004) 
and Floyd A. Santner, M.D., 55 FR 37,581 (1990)). Registrant clearly 
issued the subject fraudulent prescriptions for controlled substances 
absent a valid physician-patient relationship and thereby violated 21 
CFR 1306.04(a).

B. Registrant's Registration is Inconsistent With the Public Interest 
and Presented an Imminent Danger

    The Agency has previously found that practitioners' registrations 
were inconsistent with the public interest in matters where the 
practitioners had issued fraudulent prescriptions for themselves. See, 
e.g., David W. Bailey, M.D., 81 FR 6045, 6047 (2016) (revoking 
registration of physician who issued controlled prescriptions in his 
wife's name for personal use); Ronald Phillips, D.O., 61 FR 15,304, 
15,305 (1996) (revoking registration of practitioner who admitted to 
prescribing controlled substances in the names of family and friends, 
filling the prescriptions himself at pharmacies, and personally using a 
large portion of the controlled substances); John V. Scalera, 78 FR 
12,092, 12,098 (2013) (denying application of practitioner who issued 
controlled substance prescriptions in a deceased relative's name for 
personal use). Accordingly, I find that the evidence in this matter 
establishes Registrant ``has committed such acts as would render his 
registration . . . inconsistent with the public interest.'' See 21 
U.S.C. 824(a)(4).
    For purposes of the imminent danger inquiry, my findings also lead 
to the conclusion that Registrant has ``fail[ed] . . . to maintain 
effective controls against diversion or otherwise comply with the 
obligations of a registrant'' under the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 824(d)(2). The 
substantial evidence that Registrant was issuing and filling fraudulent 
prescriptions for controlled substances for his personal use also 
establishes that there was ``a substantial likelihood [that an] . . . 
abuse of a controlled substance . . . [would] occur in the absence of 
the immediate suspension'' of Registrant's registration. Id.

III. Sanction

    Where, as here, the Government has met its prima facie burden of 
showing that a Registrant's continued registration is inconsistent with 
the public interest, the burden shifts to the Registrant to show why he 
can be entrusted with a registration. Garrett Howard Smith, M.D., 83 FR 
18,882, 18,910 (2018) (collecting cases). Registrant did not present 
any evidence of remorse for his past misconduct or evidence of 
rehabilitative actions taken to correct his past unlawful behavior. 
Further, he provided no assurances that he would not engage in such 
conduct in the future. Absent such evidence and such assurances in this 
matter, I find that continued registration of Registrant is 
inconsistent with the public interest. Registrant's silence weighs 
against his continued registration. Zvi H. Perper, M.D., 77 FR 64,131, 
64,142 (2012 (citing Med. Shoppe-Jonesborough, 73 FR at 387); see also 
Samuel S. Jackson, 72 FR 23,848, 23,853 (2007). Accordingly, I find 
that the factors weigh in favor of sanction and I shall order the 
sanctions the Government requested, as contained in the Order below.

IV. Order

    Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 
U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of 
Registration BM9925388 issued to David Mwebe, M.D. I further hereby 
deny any pending application of David Mwebe, M.D., to renew or modify 
this registration. This Order is effective September 18, 2020.

Timothy J. Shea,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-18082 Filed 8-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P