Catina Allen, N.P.; Decision and Order

Issuing agencies

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 163 (Tuesday, August 25, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 25, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54885-54887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-17275]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Catina Allen, N.P.; Decision and Order

    On October 22, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Catina Allen, N.P., 
of Muncie, Indiana (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action 
(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of 
Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. MA8433233, alleging that 
Registrant is ``currently without authority to prescribe, administer, 
dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of 
Indiana, the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2 
(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to Agency records, Registrant's DEA registration 
expired on June 30, 2026. The fact that a registrant allows her 
registration to expire during the pendency of an OSC does not impact 
the Agency's jurisdiction or prerogative under the Controlled 
Substances Act (CSA) to adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. 
Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68476-68479 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OSC 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. Id. 
at 2-3 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a 
hearing, and the Agency finds her to be in default. RFAA, at 2-3.\2\ 
``A

[[Page 54886]]

default, unless excused, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of the 
registrant's/applicant's right to a hearing and an admission of the 
factual allegations of the [OSC].'' 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated 
March 25, 2026, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on 
Registrant was adequate. The included declaration from a DEA Group 
Supervisor (GS) indicates that on or about November 3, 2025, the GS 
traveled with a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) and Task Force 
Officer (TFO) in attempt to personally serve Registrant at 
Registrant's ``Mail To'' address. RFAAX 3, at 4. On November 6, 
2025, DEA mailed copies of the OSC to Registrant's registered 
address and ``Mail To'' address, and on November 7, 2025, both 
copies of the OSC were successfully delivered. Id.; see also id., 
Attachments E-F. On November 18, 2025, the GS emailed a copy of the 
OSC to Registrant's registered email address, and the email was not 
returned as undeliverable. Id. at 4-5; see also id., Attachments G-
H. Here, the Agency finds that Registrant was successfully served 
the OSC by email and that the DI's efforts to serve Registrant by 
other means were ```reasonably calculated, under all the 
circumstances, to apprise [Registrant] of the pendency of the 
action.''' Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (quoting 
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 
(1950)); see Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D., 82 FR 34552, 34552 (2017) 
(finding that service by email satisfies due process where the email 
is not returned as undeliverable and other methods have been 
unsuccessful); Emilio Luna, M.D., 77 FR 4829, 4830 (2012) (same). 
Therefore, due process notice requirements have been satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be 
in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action 
with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In 
such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order 
pursuant to [21 CFR] 1316.67.'' Id. at 1301.43(f)(1). Here, the 
Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant's 
default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1, 4; see 
also 21 CFR 1316.67.

Findings of Fact

    The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the 
factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. According to the 
OSC, effective March 24, 2025, both Registrant's Indiana Advanced 
Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) Prescriptive Authority license and 
Registrant's Indiana Controlled Substances Registration (CSR) 
Prescriptive Authority license were placed into a ``Current/Not 
Practicing'' status due to Registrant failing to maintain a current/
active collaboration practice agreement with an Indiana licensed 
practitioner. RFAAX 2, at 2. Further, both licenses were set to expire 
by their own terms on October 31, 2025. Id.
    According to Indiana online records, of which the Agency takes 
official notice,\3\ both Registrant's Indiana APRN Prescriptive 
Authority license and Registrant's Indiana CSR Prescriptive Authority 
license are currently expired. Indiana Licensing Enterprise License 
Search, <a href="https://mylicense.in.gov/">https://mylicense.in.gov/</a>everification (last visited date of 
signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant 
is not licensed to handle controlled substances in Indiana, the state 
in which she is registered with DEA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency ``may take 
official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding--even in the 
final decision.'' United States Department of Justice, Attorney 
General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. 
W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979).
    \4\ Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ``[w]hen an agency decision 
rests on official notice of a material fact not appearing in the 
evidence in the record, a party is entitled, on timely request, to 
an opportunity to show the contrary.'' The material fact here is 
that Registrant, as of the date of this Decision and Order, is not 
licensed to handle controlled substances in Indiana. Accordingly, 
Registrant may dispute the Agency's finding by filing a properly 
supported motion for reconsideration of findings of fact within 
fifteen calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such motion and 
response shall be filed and served by email to the other party and 
to the Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8dcddd996d9dcdcd796d9ccccd7cad6ddc1cbf8dcddd996dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="503435317e3134343f7e3124243f223e352923103435317e373f26">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized 
to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 ``upon a 
finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or 
registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State 
authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . 
. dispensing of controlled substances.'' With respect to a 
practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority 
to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which 
a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental 
condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration. 
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (``The Attorney General 
can register a physician to dispense controlled substances `if the 
applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under 
the laws of the State in which he practices.' . . . The very definition 
of a `practitioner' eligible to prescribe includes physicians 
`licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by the United States or 
the jurisdiction in which he practices' to dispense controlled 
substances. Sec.  802(21).''). The Agency has applied these principles 
consistently. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71371 (2011), 
pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Shane Lydon, 
M.D., 91 FR 43112, (2026); Javaid A. Perwaiz, M.D., 86 FR 20732 
(2021).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the 
Controlled Substances Act (CSA). First, Congress defined the term 
``practitioner'' to mean ``a physician . . . or other person 
licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by . . . the 
jurisdiction in which he practices . . . , to distribute, dispense, 
. . . [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of 
professional practice.'' 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the 
requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress 
directed that ``[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners 
. . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled 
substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.'' 21 
U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a 
practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a 
practitioner under the CSA, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation 
of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction 
whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled 
substances under the laws of the state in which he practices. See, 
e.g., Elias Garcia Garcia, P.A., 90 FR 31242 (2025); Jason Weakley, 
R.N., A.P.R.N., 90 FR 10085 (2025); Khursheed Haider, M.D., 90 FR 
21950 (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Indiana statute, and subject to exceptions irrelevant 
here, ``[e]very person who dispenses or proposes to dispense any 
controlled substance within Indiana must have a registration issued by 
the [Indiana Board of Pharmacy] in accordance with the board's rules.'' 
Ind. Code 35-48-3-3(b) (2025). Further, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver 
a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or 
pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner and includes the 
prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding 
necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Id. at 35-48-
1.1-11.
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
currently lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Indiana 
because her Indiana CSR Prescriptive Authority license is expired. As 
discussed above, a person must hold an Indiana controlled substances 
registration to dispense a controlled substance in Indiana. Thus, 
because Registrant lacks authority to handle controlled substances in 
Indiana, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. 
Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration 
be revoked.

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. 
MA8433233, issued to Catina Allen, 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 Catina Allen, N.P., to renew or 
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of 
Catina

[[Page 54887]]

Allen, N.P., for additional registration in Indiana. This Order is 
effective September 24, 2026.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
August 18, 2026, by DEA 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. 2026-17275 Filed 8-24-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>