Notice2025-19707
Dawn Evert, N.P.; Decision and Order
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 30, 2025
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 208 (Thursday, October 30, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 208 (Thursday, October 30, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48888-48892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-19707]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Dawn Evert, N.P.; Decision and Order
On February 25, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of
Registration (OSC/ISO) to Dawn Evert, N.P., of Pueblo, Colorado
(Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX)
1, at 1. The OSC/ISO informed Registrant of the immediate suspension of
her DEA Certificate of Registration, No. ME1730870, pursuant to 21
U.S.C. 824(d), alleging that Registrant's continued registration is
``an imminent danger to the public health or safety.'' Id. (quoting 21
U.S.C. 824(d)). The OSC/ISO also proposed the revocation of
Registrant's registration, alleging that her registration is
inconsistent with the public interest. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1)(B) and (D), 824(a)(4)).
More specifically, the OSC/ISO alleged that Registrant unlawfully
prescribed controlled substances to four patients, which included
prescribing dangerous combinations of controlled substances, failing to
establish a medical justification for the prescribing of controlled
substances, and failing to sufficiently monitor patients receiving
controlled substance prescriptions. Id. at 1-2. The OSC/ISO alleged
that the issuance of these prescriptions violated both state and
federal law. Id. at 3. (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(D)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to the OSC/ISO and Agency records, Registrant's
registration expired on August 31, 2025. RFAAX 1, at 3. The fact
that a registrant allows her registration to expire during the
pendency of an administrative enforcement proceeding does not impact
the Agency's jurisdiction or prerogative under the Controlled
Substances Act to adjudicate the OSC/ISO to finality. Jeffrey D.
Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68476-79 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 29, 2025, the Government submitted an RFAA requesting that
the Agency issue a default final order revoking Registrant's
registration.
[[Page 48889]]
RFAA, at 3.\2\ After carefully reviewing the entire record and
conducting the analysis as set forth in more detail below, the Agency
grants the Government's request for final agency action and revokes
Registrant's registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The RFAA states that ``the Administrator is authorized to
render the Agency's final order, without . . . making any finding of
fact in this matter.'' RFAA, at 3 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f),
and 1301.46). However, 21 CFR 1316.67 requires that the
Administrator's final order ``set forth the final rule and findings
of fact and conclusions of law upon which the rule is based.'' See
JYA LLC d/b/a Webb's Square Pharmacy, 90 FR 31244, 31246 n.7 (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Default Determination
Under 21 CFR 1301.43, a registrant entitled to a hearing who fails
to file a timely hearing request ``within 30 days after the date of
receipt of the [OSC] . . . shall be deemed to have waived their right
to a hearing and to be in default'' unless ``good cause'' is
established for the failure. 21 CFR 1301.43(a) & (c)(1). In the absence
of a demonstration of good cause, a registrant who fails to timely file
an answer also is ``deemed to have waived their right to a hearing and
to be in default.'' 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(2). Unless excused, a default is
deemed to constitute ``an admission of the factual allegations of the
[OSC].'' 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
Here, the OSC/ISO notified Registrant of her right to file a
written request for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a
request, she would be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and
be in default. RFAAX 1, at 10 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant
did not request a hearing. RFAA, at 1-2.\3\ Thus, the Agency finds that
Registrant is in default and therefore is deemed to have admitted to
the factual allegations in the OSC/ISO. 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA, the
Agency finds that service of the OSC/ISO on Registrant was adequate.
Specifically, the Government attached evidence that Registrant was
personally served with the OSC/ISO on February 26, 2025, and signed
a Form DEA-12 confirming receipt of the OSC/ISO. RFAAX 2, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Applicable Law
As the Supreme Court stated in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1
(2005), ``the main objectives of the [Controlled Substances Act (CSA)]
were to conquer drug abuse and control the legitimate and illegitimate
traffic in controlled substances.'' 545 U.S. at 12. Gonzales explained
that:
Congress was particularly concerned with the need to prevent the
diversion of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels. To effectuate
these goals, Congress devised a closed regulatory system making it
unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any
controlled substance except in a manner authorized by the CSA. . . .
The CSA and its implementing regulations set forth strict requirements
regarding registration, labeling and packaging, production quotas, drug
security, and recordkeeping.
Id. at 12-14.
According to the CSA's implementing regulations, prescriptions may
only be issued by an individual practitioner who is ``[a]uthorized to
prescribe controlled substances by the jurisdiction in which he is
licensed to practice his profession'' and has either been issued a DEA
registration or is exempted from registration under DEA regulations. 21
CFR 1306.03. Furthermore, a lawful controlled substance order or
prescription 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 bona fide doctor-patient relationship in order
to act `in the usual course of . . . professional practice' and to
issue a prescription for a `legitimate medical purpose.' '' Dewey C.
MacKay, M.D., 75 FR 49956, 49973 (2010).
Colorado state law similarly requires that prescriptions for
controlled substances only be issued in the course of legitimate
professional practice. Colo. Rev. Stat. 12-255-120(1)(s); RFAAX 1, at
3. Colorado law also forbids ``[A]ny action by any person who . . .
[h]as acted in a manner inconsistent with the health or safety of
persons under his or her care.'' Id. 12-255-120(1)(c); RFAAX 1, at 2.
In addition, Colorado law requires a practitioner or the practitioner's
designee in ordinary circumstances to query the database the Colorado
State Board of Pharmacy maintains of prescription drugs (Prescription
Drug Monitoring Program or ``Colorado PDMP'') before prescribing an
opioid or benzodiazepine to a patient. Id. 12-280-404(4)(a), (a.5)
(requirement to query the Colorado PDMP before prescribing an opioid or
benzodiazepine); RFAAX 1, at 3.
III. Findings of Fact
In light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the
OSC/ISO are deemed admitted.\4\ 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Accordingly,
Registrant admits to each of the following facts. Specifically,
Registrant admits that between January 2023 and November 2024, she
issued numerous prescriptions for Schedule II and IV controlled
substances to four patients, including a law enforcement officer
operating in an undercover capacity (UC). RFAAX 1, at 3. Registrant
admits that these prescriptions were not for a legitimate medical
purpose, nor were they issued in the usual course of professional
practice. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ According to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA),
``[f]indings of fact by the [DEA Administrator], if supported by
substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.'' 21 U.S.C. 877. Here,
where Applicant is found to be in default, all the factual
allegations in the OSC are deemed to be admitted. These uncontested
and deemed admitted facts constitute evidence that exceeds the
``substantial evidence'' standard of 21 U.S.C. 877; it is unrebutted
evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Prescribing to UC
On September 18, 2023, UC visited Registrant's office and the visit
was audio recorded. RFAAX 1, at 4. Registrant admits that she did not
perform a sufficient initial evaluation and examination, including the
taking of a comprehensive history of UC's past substance use history.
Id. Registrant also admits that she failed to appropriately address the
red flags of abuse and diversion exhibited by UC during the September
18, 2023 appointment. Id. For example, UC stated to Registrant that
they had previously obtained ``some blues'' \5\ from an acquaintance.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Blues'' is a street term for pills containing oxycodone (a
Schedule II opioid). RFAAX 1, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 5, 2023, UC visited Registrant's office again and
Registrant prescribed UC oxycodone 10 mg (21 tablets). Id. Registrant
admits that she prescribed UC this controlled substance without
maintaining sufficient clinical documentation, without conducting an
appropriate medical examination and evaluation, without establishing a
legitimate diagnosis, and without performing necessary and consistent
monitoring. Id. Registrant failed to establish a proper medical
justification for the treatment of UC with oxycodone and failed to
assess UC's risk factors for adverse outcomes. Id. Registrant admits
that she failed to appropriately address the red flags of abuse and
diversion exhibited by UC during this visit. Id. at 5. Specifically, UC
stated to Registrant that they had obtained ``blues'' from a friend.
Id. Registrant admits that she falsified UC's patient record associated
with this visit by documenting performance of a test that she, in fact,
did not conduct. Id. Registrant further admits that she did not review
the Colorado PDMP prior to issuing UC the prescription for oxycodone.
Id.
On October 18, 2023, UC called Registrant's office and spoke with
an unidentified individual who answered the line. Id. at 5. UC asked
the
[[Page 48890]]
unidentified individual who answered the telephone to ask ``Evert'' for
another prescription of oxycodone. Id. On the same day, Registrant
issued a second prescription to UC for oxycodone 10 mg (21 tablets).
Id. Registrant admits that she prescribed UC this controlled substance
without maintaining sufficient clinical documentation, without
conducting an appropriate medical examination and evaluation, without
establishing a legitimate diagnosis, and without performing necessary
and consistent monitoring. Id. Registrant failed to establish a proper
medical justification for the treatment of UC with oxycodone and failed
to assess UC's risk factors for adverse outcomes. Id. Registrant admits
that she did not review the Colorado PDMP prior to issuing UC the
prescription for oxycodone. Id.
On November 6, 2023, UC called Registrant's office and spoke with
an unidentified individual who answered the phone. Id. UC asked the
person who answered the phone for a refill of their prescription from
``Evert'' for oxycodone. Id. On that same day, Registrant issued a
third prescription to UC for oxycodone 10 mg (28 tablets). Id.
Registrant admits that she prescribed UC this controlled substance
without maintaining sufficient clinical documentation, without
conducting an appropriate medical examination and evaluation, without
establishing a legitimate diagnosis, and without performing necessary
and consistent monitoring. Id. at 6. Registrant failed to establish a
proper medical justification for the treatment of UC with oxycodone and
failed to assess UC's risk factors for adverse outcomes. Id. Registrant
admits that she did not review the Colorado PDMP prior to issuing UC
the prescription for oxycodone. Id.
2. Prescribing to J.S.
Registrant admits that between January 2023 and November 2024,
Registrant issued numerous prescriptions for controlled substances to
individual J.S., including hydrocodone 5 mg and hydrocodone 10 mg (a
Schedule II opioid), as well as diazepam 5 mg and diazepam 10 mg (a
Schedule IV benzodiazepine). Id. Registrant also admits that she
prescribed these controlled substances without sufficient clinical
documentation, without conducting an appropriate medical examination
and evaluation, without establishing a legitimate diagnosis, and
without performing necessary and consistent monitoring. Id. Registrant
further admits that she failed to monitor and review Colorado PDMP
information when prescribing these opioids and benzodiazepines between
January 1, 2023, and November 30, 2024. Id. at 7. Registrant admits and
the Agency finds unrebutted evidence that these controlled substance
prescriptions were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose, nor in
the usual course of professional practice. Id.
3. Prescribing to R.N.
Registrant admits that between January 2023 and September 2024,
Registrant issued numerous prescriptions for controlled substances to
individual R.N., including the following Schedule II opioids: oxycodone
20 mg, oxycodone 30 mg, morphine sulfate 60 mg (a Schedule II opioid),
and morphine sulfate 100 mg. Id. Registrant also prescribed diazepam 5
mg and diazepam 10 mg. Id. Registrant admits that she prescribed these
controlled substances without sufficient clinical documentation,
without conducting an appropriate medical examination and evaluation,
without establishing a legitimate diagnosis, and without performing
necessary and consistent monitoring. Id. Registrant further admits that
she failed to review Colorado PDMP information when prescribing these
opioids and benzodiazepines between January 1, 2023, and November 30,
2024. Id. at 8. Registrant admits and the Agency finds unrebutted
evidence that these controlled substance prescriptions described above
were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose, nor in the usual
course of professional practice. Id.
4. Prescribing to M.J.
Registrant admits that between February 2023 and September 2024,
Registrant issued prescriptions for controlled substances to individual
M.J. on approximately a monthly basis. Id. These prescriptions included
one and, at times, two of the following opioids per month: oxycodone 5
mg, oxycodone 10 mg, oxycodone 30 mg, morphine sulfate 15 mg, and
morphine sulfate 30 mg. Id. Registrant also prescribed approximately
monthly prescriptions for diazepam 10 mg. Id. Registrant admits that
she prescribed these controlled substances without sufficient clinical
documentation, without conducting an appropriate medical examination
and evaluation, without establishing a legitimate diagnosis, and
without performing necessary and consistent monitoring. Id. Registrant
further admits that she failed to review Colorado PDMP information when
prescribing these opioids and benzodiazepines. Id. at 9. Registrant
admits and the Agency finds unrebutted evidence that these controlled
substance prescriptions described above were not issued for a
legitimate medical purpose, nor in the usual course of professional
practice. Id.
5. Expert Review
DEA retained an independent medical expert to review materials,
including Registrant's medical records for UC and individuals J.S.,
R.N., and M.J. Id. at 9. Based on Registrant's deviations from the
standard of care, the medical expert concluded, and the Agency finds,
that the prescriptions for controlled substances Registrant issued
violated minimal medical standards applicable to the practice of
medicine in Colorado. Id.
Accordingly, the Agency finds unrebutted record evidence that
Registrant prescribed controlled substances, including dangerous
combinations of controlled substances, to UC and three other
individuals, without conducting an appropriate medical examination,
establishing a medical justification for the prescribing of controlled
substances, and querying the PDMP to monitor patients receiving
controlled substance prescriptions. Id. at 1-2.
IV. Public Interest Determination
A. Legal Background on Public Interest Determinations
When the CSA's requirements are not met, the Attorney General ``may
deny, suspend, or revoke [a] registration if . . . the [registrant's]
registration would be `inconsistent with the public interest.' ''
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 251 (2006) (quoting 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(4)). In the case of a ``practitioner,'' Congress directed the
Attorney General to consider five factors in making the public interest
determination. Id.; 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The five factors are:
(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The five factors are considered in the disjunctive. Gonzales v.
Oregon, 546 U.S. at 292-93 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (``It is well
established that these factors are to be considered in the
disjunctive'' (quoting In re Arora, 60 FR 4447, 4448 (1995))); Robert
A. Leslie, M.D., 68 FR
[[Page 48891]]
15227, 15230 (2003). Each factor is weighed on a case-by-case basis.
David H. Gillis, M.D., 58 FR 37507, 37508 (1993). Any one factor, or
combination of factors, may be decisive, David H. Gillis, M.D., 58 FR
at 37508, and the Agency ``may give each factor the weight . . .
deem[ed] appropriate in determining whether a registration should be
revoked or an application for registration denied.'' Morall, 412 F.3d.
at 185 n.2 (Henderson, J., concurring) (quoting Robert A. Smith, M.D.,
70 FR 33207, 33208 (2007)); see also Penick Corp. v. Drug Enf't Admin.,
491 F.3d 483, 490 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
Moreover, while the Agency is required to consider each of the
factors, it ``need not make explicit findings as to each one.'' MacKay
v. Drug Enf't Admin., 664 F.3d 808, 816 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Volkman v. U.S. Drug Enf't Admin., 567 F.3d 215, 222 (6th Cir. 2009));
Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, LLC v. Drug Enf't Admin., 881 F.3d
823, 830 (11th Cir. 2018); Hoxie v. Drug Enf't Admin., 419 F.3d 477,
482 (6th Cir. 2005). ``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, as the Tenth Circuit has
recognized, Agency decisions have explained that findings under a
single factor can support the revocation of a registration. MacKay, 664
F.3d at 821.
The Government has the burden of proof in this proceeding. 21 CFR
1301.44(e) (revoking or suspending a registration).
B. Registrant's Registration Is Inconsistent With the Public Interest
While the Agency has considered all the public interest factors of
21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1),\7\ the Government's evidence in support of its
prima facie case is confined to Factors B and D. RFAAX 1, at 3.
Evidence is considered under Factors B and D when it reflects
compliance or non-compliance with laws related to controlled substances
and experience dispensing controlled substances. Kareem Hubbard, M.D.,
87 FR 21156, 21162 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As to Factor A, there is no record evidence of disciplinary
action against Registrant's state medical license. 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1)(A). State authority to practice medicine is ``a necessary,
but not a sufficient condition for registration.'' Robert A. Leslie,
M.D., 68 FR at 15230. Therefore, ``[t]he fact that the record
contains no evidence of a recommendation by a state licensing board
does not weigh for or against a determination as to whether
continuation of the Respondent'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 any federal or state law offense
``relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of
controlled substances.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(C). However, as Agency
cases have noted, ``the absence of such a conviction is of
considerably less consequence in the public interest inquiry'' and
is therefore not dispositive. Dewey C. MacKay, M.D., 75 FR at 49973.
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, Registrant's noncompliance with state and federal law
reflects his experience prescribing with respect to controlled
substances. See supra Section III. Moreover, the Agency finds
unrebutted record evidence that between January 2023 and November 2024
Registrant unlawfully prescribed controlled substances, including
dangerous combinations of controlled substances, to UC and three other
individuals, without conducting an appropriate medical examination,
establishing a medical justification for the prescribing of controlled
substances, and querying the PDMP to monitor patients receiving
controlled substance prescriptions. Further, an independent medical
expert reviewed Registrant's medical records and controlled substance
prescriptions and found that Registrant's prescribing violated minimal
medical standards in Colorado. Accordingly, the unrebutted record
evidence supports the Agency's finding that between January 2023 and
November 2024 Registrant committed violations of both Colorado state
law and federal controlled substance regulations, namely 21 CFR
1306.04(a), Colo. Rev. Stat. 12-280-404(4)(a) & (a.5), and Colo. Rev.
Stat. 12-255-120(1)(c) & (s).
The Agency further finds that after considering the factors of 21
U.S.C. 823(g)(1), Registrant's registration is ``inconsistent with the
public interest.'' 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). Accordingly, the Government
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). The Agency also finds that there is no mitigating
evidence to rebut the Government's prima facie case. Thus, the only
remaining issue is whether, in spite of the public interest
determination, Registrant can be trusted with a registration.
V. Sanction
Where, as here, the Government has met the burden of showing that
Registrant's continued registration is inconsistent with the public
interest, the burden shifts to Registrant to show why she can be
entrusted with a registration. Morall, 412 F.3d. at 174; Jones Total
Health Care Pharmacy, LLC v. Drug Enf't Admin., 881 F.3d 823, 830 (11th
Cir. 2018); Garrett Howard Smith, M.D., 83 FR 18882, 18904 (2018). The
issue of trust is necessarily a fact-dependent determination based on
the circumstances presented by the individual respondent. Jeffrey
Stein, M.D., 84 FR 46968, 46972 (2019); see also Jones Total Health
Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 833. Moreover, as past performance is the
best predictor of future performance, the Agency requires that a
registrant who has committed acts inconsistent with the public interest
accept responsibility for those acts and demonstrate that she will not
engage in future misconduct. See Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881
F.3d at 833; ALRA Labs, Inc. v. Drug Enf't Admin., 54 F.3d 450, 452
(7th Cir. 1995). The Agency requires a registrant's unequivocal
acceptance of responsibility. Janet S. Pettyjohn, D.O., 89 FR 82639,
82641 (2024); Mohammed Asgar, M.D., 83 FR 29569, 29573 (2018); see also
Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 830-31. In addition, a
registrant's candor during the investigation and hearing is an
important factor in determining acceptance of responsibility and the
appropriate sanction. See Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at
830-31; Hoxie, 419 F.3d at 483-84. Further, the Agency considers the
egregiousness and extent of the misconduct as significant factors in
determining the appropriate sanction. See Jones Total Health Care
Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 834 & n.4. The Agency also considers the need to
deter similar acts by a registrant and by the community of registrants.
Jeffrey Stein, M.D., 84 FR at 46972-73.
Here, Registrant failed to answer the allegations contained in the
OSC\ISO and did not otherwise avail herself of the opportunity to
refute the Government's case. Thus, there is no record evidence that
Registrant takes responsibility, let alone unequivocal responsibility,
for the misconduct. Accordingly, she has not convinced the Agency that
her future controlled-substance-related actions will comply with the
CSA such that she can be entrusted with the responsibilities of a
registration.
Further, the interests of specific and general deterrence weigh in
favor of
[[Page 48892]]
revocation. Registrant's conduct in this matter concerns the CSA's
strict requirements regarding registration and recordkeeping and,
therefore, goes to the heart of the CSA's ``closed regulatory system''
specifically designed ``to conquer drug abuse and to control the
legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances.''
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. at 12-14. Permitting Registrant to maintain
a registration under these circumstances would send a dangerous message
that compliance with the law is not essential to maintaining a
registration.
In sum, Registrant has not offered any credible evidence on the
record that rebuts the Government's case for revocation of her
registration, and Registrant has not demonstrated that she can be
entrusted with the responsibility of registration. 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) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate
of Registration No. ME1730870 issued to Dawn Evert, N.P. 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 Dawn Evert, N.P.,
to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending
application of Dawn Evert, N.P., for registration in Colorado. This
Order is effective December 1, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
October 9, 2025, by Administrator Terrance Cole. 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. 2025-19707 Filed 10-29-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 30, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.