Notice2026-00621
Mark Huff, M.D.; 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
January 15, 2026
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1827-1829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-00621]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Mark Huff, M.D.; Decision and Order
On May 4, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Mark Huff, M.D., of
Murray, Utah (Respondent). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA),
Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 5. The OSC proposed the revocation of
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration (COR) No. FH6657716,
alleging that Respondent has committed acts that are inconsistent with
the public interest. Id. at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1); 824(a)(4)).
Specifically, the OSC alleged that during interactions with DEA
investigators in 2024, Respondent repeatedly exhibited a lack of candor
regarding his 2022 fentanyl abuse, subsequent treatment, and reasons
for seeing a doctor, which is conduct that DEA may consider under 21
U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(E) because it may threaten public health and safety.
Id. at 2-3 (citing George R. Smith, M.D., 78 FR 44972, 44979 (2013)
(observing that under Factor Five, ``the DEA has consistently held that
``[c]andor during DEA investigations, regardless of the severity of the
violations alleged, is considered by the DEA to be an important factor
when assessing whether a . . . registration is consistent with the
public interest.' '').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The OSC further alleged that on his application for a
Georgia physician's license, Respondent gave false responses to
questions regarding a previously surrendered controlled substance
license. Id. at 3-4. The Agency need not address this allegation
because there is substantial other evidence that Respondent's
registration is inconsistent with the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 6, 2025, Respondent requested a hearing. RFAA, at 1; see
also RFAAX 4, at 1; RFAAX 5, at 1. On June 9, 2025, Chief
Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney, II (the Chief ALJ) issued
an Order for Prehearing Statements, which included detailed
instructions for the submission of each party's prehearing statement.
RFAA, at 1-2; see also RFAAX 4. On July 8, 2025, the Chief ALJ issued
an Order Terminating Hearing Proceedings on the basis that Respondent's
prehearing statements were ``wholly unsatisfactory.'' \2\ RFAA, at 2;
see also RFAAX 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The ALJ's termination of proceedings on this basis was a
reasonable exercise of discretion. See 5 U.S.C. 556(c) (granting the
ALJ power to ``regulate the course of the hearing'' and ``dispose of
procedural requests or similar matters''); see also Robert L.
Carter, D.D.S., 90 FR 9631, 9632 (2025) (finding that the ALJ
``acted within his authority'' and ``did not error in using his
discretion to find that Respondent's failure to file a compliant
prehearing statement amounted to an implied waiver of his hearing
request''); David H. Betat, M.D., 87 FR 21175, 21176, 21180 (2022)
(deferring to the ALJ's finding that the registrant waived his right
to a hearing by failing to respond to the ALJ's orders); Care Point
Pharmacy, Inc., 86 FR 40621, 40621 n.3 (2021) (``Agency precedent is
clear that the unwillingness or inability of a party to comply with
the directives of the [ALJ] may support an implied waiver of that
party's right to a hearing.'') (internal quotations removed and
collecting cases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 20, 2025, the Government submitted its RFAA requesting
that the Agency issue a final order revoking Respondent's registration.
RFAA, at 8. 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 Respondent's
registration because Respondent's continued registration is
inconsistent with the public interest.
I. Applicable Law
As the Supreme Court stated in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1
(2005), ``the main objectives of the 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.
The OSC's allegations concern the CSA's ``statutory and regulatory
provisions mandating registration with the DEA'' and, therefore, go 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,'' and ``to prevent the
diversion of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels.'' Id. at 12-14,
27.
II. Findings of Fact
The Agency finds substantial record evidence for the following
findings of fact based on the uncontroverted evidence submitted by the
Government in its RFAA dated August 20, 2025.
Respondent was previously registered with DEA under DEA COR
BH9335351. RFAAX 3, at 2. On November 25, 2013, Respondent signed a DEA
Form-104 voluntarily surrendering this previous registration for cause.
Id.; see also id., Attachment B. Respondent is currently registered
with DEA under DEA COR No. FH6657716, with a registered address in
Utah. RFAAX 3, Attachment A, at 1-2.
On January 8, 2024, Respondent requested to modify the address of
DEA COR No. FH6657716 to an address in Georgia. RFAAX 3, at 1.
Respondent's request was placed under review due to the prior
suspension of Respondent's Utah medical license and Respondent's
surrender of his prior DEA COR BH9335351. Id. at 1-2. Review of the
prior suspension of Respondent's Utah medical license uncovered that in
2011, Respondent had entered into a diversion agreement with the Utah
Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL) due to
fentanyl \3\ use. RFAAX 3, at 2. In 2013, Respondent's Utah medical
license was suspended due to his failure to comply with the 2011
diversion agreement. Id. Further, Respondent's surrender of his prior
DEA
[[Page 1828]]
COR BH9335351 was due to the state suspension. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Fentanyl is a Schedule II opioid. 21 CFR 1308.12(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 29, 2024, during a phone call with DEA, Respondent
stated that in 2013, due to fentanyl abuse, he was placed on probation
and underwent intensive outpatient treatment, but since 2013, he had
not received any other treatment. Id. at 3. Review of Prescription Drug
Monitoring Program (PDMP) data pertaining to Respondent from Utah's
Controlled Substance Database uncovered that from approximately March
2022 to July 2022, Respondent received six prescriptions for
Suboxone.\4\ RFAAX 3, at 2-3; see also id., Attachment D, Attachment F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Suboxone is a brand name for the combination of
buprenorphine (a Schedule III narcotic) and naloxone. 21 CFR
1308.13(e)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 2, 2024, during another phone call with DEA in which
Respondent was asked about the above conflicting information,
Respondent stated that he had decided to visit Dr. M.C., who prescribed
him Suboxone, because his wife had been falsely accusing him of taking
narcotics and he wanted to appease her. RFAAX 3, at 3. Respondent also
stated that during the January 29, 2024 interview, he had answered
``no'' regarding any drug abuse treatment since 2013 because he had
thought the question referred to intensive outpatient treatment (like
his 2013 treatment). Id.
On March 12, 2024, during an in-person interview with DEA,
Respondent stated that he had contacted Dr. M.C. on recommendation from
his former mentor and sponsor, and he was prescribed Suboxone to
prevent a relapse and for stress. Id. at 3-4. Respondent stated that
taking the Suboxone was a protective mechanism and that he thought he
could tolerate Suboxone without being on narcotics. Id. at 4. When
asked about his February 2, 2024 statement that he had taken the
Suboxone to appease his wife, Respondent stated that that was also part
of the reason. Id.
Subsequent review of Respondent's medical records uncovered that in
January 2022, Respondent relapsed and began abusing fentanyl. Id.; see
also id., Attachment H, at 1, 2, 4. After discontinuing fentanyl,
Respondent experienced withdrawal symptoms and tried non-controlled
propofol, but it did not work for him. RFAAX 3, at 4; see also id.,
Attachment H, at 2. On March 7, 2022, Respondent was diagnosed by Dr.
M.C. with ``[s]evere opioid use disorder.'' RFAAX 3, at 5; see also
id., Attachment H, at 1. From March 2022 through July 2022, Respondent
received six prescriptions for Suboxone, with the July prescription
issued by a second doctor, Dr. S.H. See RFAAX 3, Attachments D, F, H,
J.\5\ Respondent's records continually described Respondent's diagnosis
and treatment as ``opioid use disorder'' and ``on maintenance
therapy,'' respectively. RFAAX 3, at 5; see also id., Attachment H-J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The documentation regarding Respondent's visit to Dr. H. was
not included with the documentation provided by Respondent to DEA.
RFAAX 3, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 22, 2024, DEA interviewed Respondent a fourth time, in
person. RFAAX 3, at 6. When asked about the multiple indications of a
fentanyl relapse in his medical records, Respondent maintained that he
had received Suboxone as a preventative measure and not because he had
had a relapse. Id. Further, Respondent again stated that he had
misunderstood the January 29, 2024 question about drug abuse treatment
because he had thought the question referred to ```participation in a
program.' '' Id.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that
during his interactions with DEA in 2024, Respondent consistently
showed a lack of candor regarding his 2022 fentanyl abuse, subsequent
treatment, and reasons for seeing a doctor.
III. 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 (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.
21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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
v. Drug Enf't Admin., 412 F.3d. 165, 185 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
(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).
B. Respondent'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 Agency finds that the
[[Page 1829]]
Government's evidence in support of its prima facie case is confined to
Factor E. RFAA, at 4-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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 [or granting of a] DEA
certification is consistent with the public interest.'' Roni
Dreszer, M.D., 76 FR 19434, 19444 (2011). As to Factors B and D,
evidence is considered under these two factors when it reflects
experience dispensing controlled substances and compliance or non-
compliance with laws related to controlled substances. Kareem
Hubbard, M.D., 87 FR 21156, 21162 (2022). Here, there is no evidence
in the record reflecting Respondent's experience dispensing
controlled substances nor evidence in the record reflecting
Respondent's compliance or non-compliance with laws related to
controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(B), (D). As to Factor C,
there is no evidence in the record that Respondent 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, ``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 49956, 49973 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence is considered under Factor E when it constitutes ``[s]uch
other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.'' 21
U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(E). The Agency has consistently found that a lack of
candor is proper to consider under Factor E as something that threatens
public health and safety. OakmontScript Limited Partnership, 87 FR
21516, 21532-33 (2022) (citing John V. Scalera, 78 FR 12092, 12093,
12100 (2013); Jeri Hassman, M.D., 75 FR 8194, 8236 (2010)); see also
Annicol Marrocco, M.D., 80 FR 28695, 28705 (2015); Alan H. Olefsky,
M.D., 76 FR 20025, 20031 (2011) (``Because of the authority conveyed by
a registration and the extraordinary potential for harm caused by those
who misuse their registrations, DEA places significant weight on an
applicant/registrant's candor in the proceeding.'').
Here, as found above, the Agency finds that during his interactions
with DEA in 2024, Respondent consistently showed a lack of candor
regarding his 2022 fentanyl abuse, subsequent treatment, and reasons
for seeing a doctor. See supra II. The Agency therefore finds that
Factor E weighs towards a finding that Respondent's registration is
inconsistent with the public interest.
In sum, the Agency finds that after considering the factors of 21
U.S.C. 823(g)(1), Respondent's continued 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
Respondent's continued registration would be ``inconsistent with the
public interest.'' Id. The Agency also finds that Respondent has
presented no mitigating evidence to rebut the Government's prima facie
case. Thus, the only remaining issue is whether, in spite of
Respondent's misconduct, Respondent can be trusted with a registration.
IV. Sanction
Where, as here, the Government has met the burden of showing that
Respondent's registration is inconsistent with the public interest, the
burden shifts to Respondent to show why he can be entrusted with a
registration. Morall, 412 F.3d. at 174; Jones Total Health Care
Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 830; 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 registrant.
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 he 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 has been 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, although Respondent initially requested a hearing, the
proceedings were terminated in the prehearing stage on the basis that
Respondent's prehearing statements were ``wholly unsatisfactory.'' See
RFAA, at 1-2; RFAAX 4-5. Moreover, Respondent did not otherwise avail
himself of the opportunity to refute the Government's case. As such,
Respondent has not accepted responsibility for the proven violations,
has made no representations regarding his future compliance with the
CSA, and has not demonstrated that he can be entrusted with
registration.
Accordingly, the Agency will order the revocation of Respondent'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. FH6657716 issued to Mark Huff, M.D. 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 Mark Huff, M.D.,
to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending
application of Mark Huff, M.D., for additional registration in Utah.
This Order is effective February 17, 2026.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
January 6, 2026, by Administrator Terrance C. 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. 2026-00621 Filed 1-14-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 15, 2026.
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.