[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 211 (Thursday, November 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75326-75330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24150]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Blue Mint Pharmacy; Decision and Order

    On July 26, 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of 
Registration (OSC/ISO) to Blue Mint Pharmacy (Registrant) of Houston, 
Texas. Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Government Exhibit 
(RFAAX) 2, at 1. The OSC/ISO informed Registrant of the immediate 
suspension of its DEA Certificate of Registration (registration), 
Control No. FB4121327, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging that 
Registrant's continued registration constitutes ```an imminent danger 
to the public health or safety.''' Id. The OSC/ISO also proposed the 
revocation of Registrant's registration, alleging that Registrant's 
continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest. Id. 
(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4), 823(g)(1)) \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Effective December 2, 2022, the Medical Marijuana and 
Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, Public Law 117-215, 136 Stat. 
2257 (2022) (Marijuana Research Amendments or MRA), amended the 
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and other statutes. Relevant to this 
matter, the MRA redesignated 21 U.S.C. 823(f), cited in the OSC/ISO, 
as 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Accordingly, this Decision cites to the 
current designation, 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), and to the MRA-amended CSA 
throughout.

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

[[Page 75327]]

    The Agency makes the following findings of fact based on the 
uncontroverted evidence submitted by the Government in its RFAA dated 
April 17, 2023.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Based on the Declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator, 
the Agency finds that the Government's service of the OSC/ISO on 
Registrant was adequate. RFAAX 3, at 5. Further, based on the 
Government's assertions in its RFAA, the Agency finds that more than 
thirty days have passed since Registrant was served with the OSC/ISO 
and Registrant has neither requested a hearing nor submitted a 
corrective action plan and, therefore, has waived any such rights. 
RFAA, at 2; see also 21 CFR 1301.43 and 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Findings of Fact

Texas Standard of Care

    DEA consulted Ms. Katherine Salinas, RPh, as an expert regarding 
the standard of care in the state of Texas for pharmacy practice.\3\ 
RFAAX 4, at 1. According to Ms. Salinas, the Texas standard of care 
requires that when dispensing a controlled substance, Texas pharmacists 
must ensure that the prescription for the controlled substance is 
valid, pursuant to a valid patient-practitioner relationship, and 
issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner 
acting in the usual course of his professional practice. Id. at 1-2. 
Further, prior to dispensing a controlled substance, a pharmacist must 
resolve any questions regarding the prescription with the prescriber 
and maintain written documentation of any such discussions. Id. at 2. A 
pharmacist must also review the patient's medication record and ``at a 
minimum identify clinically significant: . . . (III) reasonable dose 
and route of administration; . . . (IV) drug-drug interactions; . . . 
and (X) proper utilization, including overutilization or 
underutilization.'' Id.; see also 22 Tex. Admin. Code section 
291.33(c)(2)(A)(i). According to Ms. Salinas, ``[a]ll [s]tate of Texas 
pharmacists have access to these requirements[ ] and are required to 
pass a jurisprudence examination in order to become a licensed 
pharmacist.'' RFAAX 4, at 2. Further, ``[a]ll [s]tate of Texas 
pharmacists know [that they are] required to exercise reasonable 
caution in practice to prevent diversion by following common sense and 
proper dispensing practices.'' Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For Ms. Salinas' qualifications, see RFAAX 4, Attachment P. 
Ms. Salinas is currently employed by the Texas State Board of 
Pharmacy as a Compliance Officer, and one of her duties is to 
inspect all classes of pharmacies for compliance with Texas pharmacy 
rules and regulations. RFAAX 4, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, Ms. Salinas noted the Texas State Board of Pharmacy 
``Red Flag Checklist,'' which is available to all Texas pharmacists on 
the Texas State Board of Pharmacy's website and also provided during 
pharmacy compliance inspections. Id. The red flags listed on the 
checklist include pattern prescribing; \4\ prescriptions for controlled 
substances commonly known to be abused such as opioids or muscle 
relaxants; prescriptions for controlled substances at the highest 
strength and/or in large quantities; \5\ patients obtaining similar 
controlled substance prescriptions from multiple practitioners; 
multiple patients sharing the same address and obtaining similar 
controlled substance prescriptions from the same practitioner; and 
patients consistently paying for controlled substance prescriptions 
with cash rather than through insurance. Id. at 3-4. Ms. Salinas stated 
that Texas pharmacists must document how they address and resolve any 
red flags and must have prevention techniques in place to deter the 
dispensing of fraudulent controlled substance prescriptions, such as 
contacting doctors to verify prescriptions, searching the Texas Medical 
Board website, talking with patients, and checking patient 
identification cards. Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Pattern prescribing is when `` `a pharmacy dispenses a 
reasonably discernible pattern of substantially identical 
prescriptions for the same controlled substances, potentially paired 
with other controlled substances, for numerous persons, indicating a 
lack of individual drug therapy in prescriptions issued by the 
practitioner.' '' Id.
    \5\ Such prescriptions can indicate a lack of individual drug 
therapy in prescriptions issued by the practitioner. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ms. Salinas concluded her explanation of the Texas standard of care 
by stating that ``a pharmacist must engage in a verification process of 
a prescription.'' Id. at 5. Further, Ms. Salinas stated: ``If a 
pharmacist does not believe a prescription is for a legitimate medical 
purpose, the pharmacist should not fill it.'' Id. Ms. Salinas also 
noted that ``[a]s a Compliance Officer, when [she identifies] a 
recurring pattern of certain combinations of controlled substances, 
with the same dosage and in large quantities to various patients, being 
paid for in cash instead of using insurance, [her] opinion is that the 
pharmacy is inappropriately dispensing controlled substance 
prescriptions and/or engaging in diversion activity.'' Id.

Expert Review of Registrant's Dispensing

    Applying the Texas standard of care, Ms. Salinas reviewed 
Registrant's PMP data from approximately February 1, 2021, through 
March 31, 2022, Registrant's patient profiles for the fourteen patients 
at issue, and copies of certain controlled substance prescriptions 
issued to the fourteen patients. Id. Ultimately, Ms. Salinas concluded, 
and the Agency agrees, that between February 1, 2021, and March 31, 
2022, Registrant repeatedly filled prescriptions for controlled 
substances for the fourteen patients at issue without addressing or 
resolving red flags of abuse or diversion in violation of the Texas 
standard of care and thus outside the usual course of professional 
practice. Id. at 5-6, 18.
Patients A.W., M.F., and D.H.
    Registrant filled nearly identical prescriptions for patients A.W., 
M.F., and D.H., who all shared an address. Specifically, between 
January 31, 2022, and March 2, 2022, Registrant filled prescriptions 
for Patient A.W. for 110 tablets of 10/325 mg hydrocodone/acetaminophen 
and 85 tablets of 350 mg carisoprodol. RFAAX 4, at 6; see also RFAAX 3, 
Attachment B. Further, between December 31, 2021, and March 15, 2022, 
Registrant filled prescriptions for Patient M.F. for 120 tablets of 10/
325 mg hydrocodone/acetaminophen and 85 tablets of 350 mg carisoprodol. 
RFAAX 4, at 11; see also RFAAX 3, Attachment H. Finally, between June 
17, 2021, and August 26, 2021, Registrant filled prescriptions for 
Patient D.H. for 110 tablets of 10/325 mg hydrocodone/acetaminophen and 
90 tablets of 350 mg carisoprodol. RFAAX 4, at 14; see also RFAAX 3, 
Attachment K.
    In reviewing the prescriptions for these three individuals, Ms. 
Salinas found that all of the prescriptions were issued by the same 
practitioner, Dr. G.K., who prescribed the same controlled substances 
in identical or substantially similar quantities to multiple patients; 
both the hydrocodone/acetaminophen and the carisoprodol, controlled 
substances known to be abused, were prescribed in large quantities and 
at the highest dosage; the three patients shared the same address; and 
all three patients paid cash for all of the prescriptions. RFAAX 4, at 
6, 11-12, 14-15; see also RFAAX 3, Attachments B, H, K. Ms. Salinas did 
not find any evidence that Registrant addressed these red flags of 
abuse or diversion and, as a result, opined that Registrant violated 
the minimum standard of care for a Texas pharmacy and operated outside 
of the usual course of professional practice. RFAAX 4, at 6-7, 12, 15; 
see also RFAAX 3, Attachments B, H, K.

[[Page 75328]]

Patient J.A., D.W., C.E, and S.F.
    Registrant filled nearly identical prescriptions for patients J.A., 
D.W., C.E., and S.F, who all shared an address. Specifically, between 
January 26, 2022, and March 25, 2022, Registrant filled prescriptions 
for Patient J.A. for 110 tablets of 10/325 mg hydrocodone/acetaminophen 
and 85 tablets of 350 mg carisoprodol. RFAAX 4, at 7; see also RFAAX 3, 
Attachment C. Further, between January 18, 2022, and March 17, 2022, 
Registrant filled prescriptions for Patient D.W. for 110 tablets of 10/
325 mg hydrocodone/acetaminophen and 85 tablets of 350 mg carisoprodol. 
RFAAX 4, at 8; see also RFAAX 3, Attachment D. Between January 4, 2022, 
and March 3, 2022, Registrant filled prescriptions for Patient C.E. for 
110 tablets of 10/325 mg hydrocodone/acetaminophen and 85 tablets of 
350 mg carisoprodol. RFAAX 4, at 10; see also RFAAX 3, Attachment G. 
Finally, between December 30, 2021, and March 24, 2022, Registrant 
filled prescriptions for Patient S.F. for 110 tablets of 10/325 mg 
hydrocodone/acetaminophen and 90 tablets of 350 mg carisoprodol. RFAAX 
4, at 12; see also RFAAX 3, Attachment I.
    In reviewing the above prescriptions issued to the four patients, 
Ms. Salinas found that all of the prescriptions were issued by the same 
practitioner, Dr. G.K., who prescribed the same controlled substances 
in identical or substantially similar quantities to multiple patients; 
both the hydrocodone/acetaminophen and the carisoprodol, controlled 
substances known to be abused, were prescribed in large quantities and 
at the highest dosage; the four patients shared the same address and 
three of the patients (J.A., D.W., and S.F.) shared the same phone 
number; and all four patients paid cash for all of the prescriptions. 
RFAAX 4, at 7-8, 10-11, 13; RFAAX 3, Attachments C, D, G, I. Ms. 
Salinas did not find any evidence that Registrant addressed these red 
flags of abuse or diversion and, as a result, opined that Registrant 
violated the minimum standard of care for a Texas pharmacy and operated 
outside of the usual course of professional practice. RFAAX 4, at 7-13; 
see also RFAAX 3, Attachments C, D, G, I.
Patients A.B. and C.B.
    Between January 17, 2022, and March 18, 2022, Registrant filled 
prescriptions for both Patient A.B. and Patient C.B. for 120 tablets of 
10/325 mg hydrocodone/acetaminophen and 90 tablets of 350 mg 
carisoprodol. RFAAX 4, at 9-10; see also RFAAX 3, Attachment E, F. In 
reviewing the prescriptions, Ms. Salinas found that all of the 
prescriptions were issued by the same practitioner, Dr. G.K., who 
prescribed the same controlled substances in identical or substantially 
similar quantities to multiple patients; both the hydrocodone/
acetaminophen and the carisoprodol, controlled substances known to be 
abused, were prescribed in large quantities and at the highest dosage; 
and Patients A.B. and C.B. paid cash for all of the prescriptions. Id. 
Ms. Salinas did not find any evidence that Registrant addressed these 
red flags of abuse or diversion and, as a result, opined that 
Registrant violated the minimum standard of care for a Texas pharmacy 
and operated outside of the usual course of professional practice. Id.
Patient T.P.
    Between July 8, 2021, and September 10, 2021, Registrant filled 
prescriptions for Patient T.P. for 110 tablets of 10/325 mg 
hydrocodone/acetaminophen and 85 tablets of 350 mg carisoprodol. RFAAX 
4, at 13-14; see also RFAAX 3, Attachment J. In reviewing the 
prescriptions, Ms. Salinas found that all of the prescriptions were 
issued by the same practitioner, Dr. G.K., who prescribed the same 
controlled substances in identical or substantially similar quantities 
to multiple patients; both the hydrocodone/acetaminophen and the 
carisoprodol, controlled substances known to be abused, were prescribed 
in large quantities and at the highest dosage; Patient T.P. shared the 
same phone number as Patient M.F.; and Patient T.P. paid cash for all 
of the prescriptions. RFAAX 4, at 14; see also RFAAX 3, Attachment J. 
Ms. Salinas did not find any evidence that Registrant addressed these 
red flags of abuse or diversion and, as a result, opined that 
Registrant violated the minimum standard of care for a Texas pharmacy 
and operated outside of the usual course of professional practice. 
RFAAX 4, at 14; see also RFAAX 3, Attachment J.
Patient G.A.
    Between February 24, 2021, and February 9, 2022, Registrant filled 
prescriptions for Patient G.A. for 120 tablets of 10/325 mg 
hydrocodone/acetaminophen and 90 tablets of 350 mg carisoprodol. RFAAX 
4, at 15; see also RFAAX 3, Attachment L. In reviewing the 
prescriptions, Ms. Salinas found that the prescriptions were issued by 
multiple, different practitioners. RFAAX 4, at 14-15; see also RFAAX 3, 
Attachment L. Ms. Salinas did not find any evidence that Registrant 
addressed this red flag of abuse or diversion and, as a result, opined 
that Registrant violated the minimum standard of care for a Texas 
pharmacy and operated outside of the usual course of professional 
practice. RFAAX 4, at 16; see also RFAAX 3, Attachment L.
Patient K.G.
    Between February 1, 2021, and March 15, 2022, Registrant filled 
prescriptions for Patient K.G. for 110 tablets of 10/325 mg 
hydrocodone/acetaminophen and 80 tablets of 350 mg carisoprodol. RFAAX 
4, at 16; see also RFAAX 3, Attachment M. In reviewing the 
prescriptions, Ms. Salinas found that the prescriptions were issued by 
multiple, different practitioners. Id. Ms. Salinas did not find any 
evidence that Registrant addressed this red flag of abuse or diversion 
and, as a result, opined that Registrant violated the minimum standard 
of care for a Texas pharmacy and operated outside of the usual course 
of professional practice. Id.
Patient L.J.
    Between March 12, 2021, and March 23, 2022, Registrant filled 
prescriptions for Patient L.J. for 112 tablets of 10/325 mg 
hydrocodone/acetaminophen and 80 tablets of 350 mg carisoprodol. RFAAX 
4, at 17; see also RFAAX 3, Attachment N. In reviewing the 
prescriptions, Ms. Salinas found that the prescriptions were issued by 
multiple, different practitioners. Id. Ms. Salinas did not find any 
evidence that Registrant addressed this red flag of abuse or diversion 
and, as a result, opined that Registrant violated the minimum standard 
of care for a Texas pharmacy and operated outside of the usual course 
of professional practice. Id.
Patient T.T.
    Between February 4, 2021, and March 8, 2022, Registrant filled 
prescriptions for Patient T.T. for 110 tablets of 10/325 mg 
hydrocodone/acetaminophen and 80 tablets of 350 mg carisoprodol. RFAAX 
4, at 17; see also RFAAX 3, Attachment O. In reviewing the 
prescriptions, Ms. Salinas found that the prescriptions were issued by 
multiple, different practitioners. Id. Ms. Salinas did not find any 
evidence that Registrant addressed this red flag of abuse or diversion 
and, as a result, opined that Registrant violated the minimum standard 
of care for a Texas pharmacy and operated outside of the usual course 
of professional practice. RFAAX 4, at 17-18; see also RFAAX 3, 
Attachment O.

II. Discussion

A. The Five Public Interest Factors

    Under the CSA, ``[a] registration . . . to . . . dispense a 
controlled substance

[[Page 75329]]

. . . may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a 
finding that the registrant . . . has committed such acts as would 
render [its] registration under section 823 of this title inconsistent 
with the public interest as determined under such section.'' 21 U.S.C. 
824(a). In making the public interest determination, the CSA requires 
consideration of the following factors:

    (A) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board 
or professional disciplinary authority.
    (B) The [registrant]'s experience in dispensing, or conducting 
research with respect to controlled substances.
    (C) The [registrant]'s conviction record under Federal or State 
laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of 
controlled substances.
    (D) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws 
relating to controlled substances.
    (E) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and 
safety.

21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)

    The Agency considers these public interest factors in the 
disjunctive. Robert A. Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003). Each 
factor is weighed on a case-by-case basis. Morall v. Drug Enf't Admin., 
412 F.3d 165, 173-74 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Any one factor, or combination 
of factors, may be decisive. David H. Gillis, M.D., 58 FR 37507, 37508 
(1993).
    While the Agency has considered all of the public interest factors 
in 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1),\6\ the Government's evidence in support of its 
prima facie case for revocation of Registrant's registration is 
confined to Factors B and D. See RFAA, at 23-29. Moreover, the 
Government has the burden of proof in this proceeding. 21 CFR 1301.44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As to Factor A, the record contains no evidence of a 
recommendation from any state licensing board or professional 
disciplinary authority. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A). Nonetheless, an 
absence of such evidence ``does not weigh for or against a 
determination as to whether continuation of the [Registrant's] DEA 
certification is consistent with the public interest.'' Roni 
Dreszer, M.D., 76 FR 19434, 19444 (2011). As to Factor C, there is 
no evidence in the record that Registrant has been convicted of an 
offense under either federal or state law ``relating to the 
manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.'' 
21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(C). However, as Agency cases have noted, there 
are a number of reasons why one who has engaged in criminal 
misconduct may never have been convicted of an offense under this 
factor. Dewey C. MacKay, M.D., 75 FR 49956, 49973 (2010). Agency 
cases have therefore found that ``the absence of such a conviction 
is of considerably less consequence in the public interest inquiry'' 
and is therefore not dispositive. Id. Finally, as to Factor E, the 
Government's evidence fits squarely within the parameters of Factors 
B and D and does not raise ``other conduct which may threaten the 
public health and safety.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(E). Accordingly, 
Factor E does not weigh for or against Registrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence satisfies 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).

B. Factors B and D

    Evidence is considered under Public Interest Factors B and D when 
it reflects compliance (or non-compliance) with laws related to 
controlled substances and experience dispensing controlled substances. 
See Sualeh Ashraf, M.D., 88 FR 1095, 1097 (2023); Kareem Hubbard, M.D., 
87 FR 21156, 21162 (2022). In the current matter, the Government has 
alleged that Registrant violated numerous federal and state laws 
regulating controlled substances. RFAAX 2, at 2.\7\ Specifically, 
federal law requires that ``[a] prescription for a controlled substance 
may only be filled by a pharmacist, acting in the usual course of his 
professional practice,'' and that ``[a] prescription for a controlled 
substance to be effective must be issued for a legitimate medical 
purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his 
professional practice.'' 21 CFR 1306.04(a), 1306.06; see also 21 U.S.C. 
829. Federal law also emphasizes that although ``[t]he responsibility 
for the proper prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances is 
upon the prescribing practitioner . . . a corresponding responsibility 
rests with the pharmacist who fills the prescription.'' 21 CFR 
1306.04(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Agency need not adjudicate the criminal violations 
alleged in the instant OSC/ISO. Ruan v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 
2,370 (2022) (decided in the context of criminal proceedings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for state law, Texas regulations require that ``[a] pharmacist 
may not . . . dispense or deliver a controlled substance . . . except 
under a valid prescription and in the course of professional 
practice.'' Tex. Health & Safety Code section 481.074(a)(1).\8\ The 
Texas Board of Pharmacy sets forth numerous ``operational standards'' 
for pharmacists filling prescriptions, requiring, firstly, that 
pharmacists ``review the patient's medication record. Such review shall 
at a minimum identify clinically significant . . . (III) reasonable 
dose and route of administration; . . . (VI) drug-drug interactions; . 
. . and (X) proper utilization, including overutilization or 
underutilization.'' 22 Tex. Admin. Code section 291.33(c)(2)(A)(i). 
Further, ``[u]pon identifying any clinically significant conditions 
[or] situations[,] . . . the pharmacist shall take appropriate steps to 
avoid or resolve the problem including consultation with the 
prescribing practitioner.'' Id. section 291.33(c)(2)(A)(ii). A 
pharmacist must also ensure that ``[p]rior to dispensing, any questions 
regarding a prescription drug order [ ] be resolved with the prescriber 
and written documentation of these discussions [be] made and 
maintained.'' Id. section 291.33(c)(2)(A)(iv). Finally, a pharmacist 
must consider the various ``red flag factors'' in preventing the non-
therapeutic dispensing of controlled substances, including, among 
others: pattern prescribing; prescriptions for controlled substances 
commonly known to be abused; prescriptions for controlled substances at 
the highest strength and/or in large quantities; patients obtaining 
similar controlled substance prescriptions from multiple practitioners; 
multiple patients sharing the same address and obtaining similar 
controlled substance prescriptions from the same practitioner; and 
patients consistently paying for controlled substance prescriptions 
with cash rather than through insurance. Id. section 291.29(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Texas law notes that ``[a] pharmacist may not . . . dispense 
a controlled substance if the pharmacist knows or should have known 
that the prescription was issued without a valid patient-
practitioner relationship.'' Id. section 481.074(a)(2). Further, it 
is unlawful in Texas for any ``registrant or dispenser'' to 
knowingly deliver a controlled substance in violation of sections 
481.070-481.075 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. Id. section 
481.128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here, the record demonstrates that Registrant repeatedly filled 
prescriptions for controlled substances for multiple patients without 
adhering to Texas' ``operational standards'' for pharmacists filling 
prescriptions and without addressing or resolving numerous and blatant 
red flags of abuse and/or diversion. Because Registrant's conduct 
clearly violates the Texas standard of care--thus rendering its 
dispensing outside the usual course of professional practice--and 
clearly violates the various federal and state regulations described 
above, the Agency hereby sustains the Government's allegations that 
Registrant repeatedly violated federal and state law relating to 
controlled substances.
    Accordingly, the Agency finds that Factors B and D weigh in favor 
of revocation of Registrant's registration and thus finds Registrant's 
continued registration to be inconsistent with the public interest in 
balancing the factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). The Agency further finds 
that Registrant failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the 
Government's prima facie case.

III. Sanction

    Where, as here, the Government has established grounds to revoke

[[Page 75330]]

Registrant's registration, the burden shifts to the registrant to show 
why it can be entrusted with the responsibility carried by a 
registration. Garret Howard Smith, M.D., 83 FR 18882, 18910 (2018). 
When a registrant has committed acts inconsistent with the public 
interest, it must both accept responsibility and demonstrate that it 
has undertaken corrective measures. Holiday CVS, L.L.C., dba CVS 
Pharmacy Nos 219 and 5195, 77 FR 62316, 62339 (2012) (internal 
quotations omitted). Trust is necessarily a fact-dependent 
determination based on individual circumstances; therefore, the Agency 
looks at factors such as the acceptance of responsibility, the 
credibility of that acceptance as it relates to the probability of 
repeat violations or behavior, the nature of the misconduct that forms 
the basis for sanction, and the Agency's interest in deterring similar 
acts. See, e.g., Robert Wayne Locklear, M.D., 86 FR 33738, 33746 
(2021).
    Here, Registrant did not request a hearing, submit a corrective 
action plan, respond to the OSC/ISO, or otherwise avail itself of the 
opportunity to refute the Government's case. As such, Registrant has 
made no representations as to its future compliance with the CSA nor 
made any demonstration that it can be entrusted with registration. 
Moreover, the evidence presented by the Government clearly shows that 
Registrant violated the CSA, further indicating that Registrant cannot 
be entrusted. Accordingly, the Agency will order the revocation of 
Registrant's registration.

Order

    Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 
U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. 
FB4121327 issued to Blue Mint Pharmacy. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 
0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I 
hereby deny any pending applications of Blue Mint Pharmacy, to renew or 
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of 
Blue Mint Pharmacy, for additional registration in Texas. This Order is 
effective December 4, 2023.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
October 25, 2023, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the 
original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative 
purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the 
Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer 
has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic 
format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This 
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this 
document upon publication in the Federal Register.

Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-24150 Filed 11-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P