Skip to main content
Notice2026-18599

Cheryl White, 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
September 11, 2026

Issuing agencies

Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 175 (Friday, September 11, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 175 (Friday, September 11, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57927-57928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-18599]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Cheryl White, N.P.; Decision and Order

    On March 17, 2026, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Cheryl White, N.P., 
of Newburgh, Indiana (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action 
(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of 
Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. MW0411049, 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 registration 
expired on May 31, 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, 68476-79 (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. 
(citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing, 
and the Agency finds her to be in default. RFAA, at 2.\2\ ``A 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 May 
21, 2026, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was 
adequate. The RFAA's included Declaration from a DEA Diversion 
Investigator (DI) indicates that on or about March 31, 2026, the DI 
mailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant's residential address in 
Lexington, Kentucky. RFAAX 3, at 3; see also id., Attachment D. On 
the same date, the DI emailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant's 
registered email address. RFAAX 3, at 3; see also id., Attachment F. 
The mailed copy of the OSC was successfully delivered on April 2, 
2026. RFAAX 3, at 3; see also id., Attachment E. 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)). Therefore, due process notice 
requirements have been satisfied. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 3; 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, on October 31, 2023, Registrant's Indiana registered nurse 
license, Registrant's Indiana Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) 
Prescriptive Authority license, and Registrant's Indiana Controlled 
Substances Registration (CSR) Prescriptive Authority license all 
expired by their own terms. RFAAX 2, at 1-2.
    According to Indiana online records, of which the Agency takes 
official notice,\3\ Registrant's Indiana registered nurse license, 
Registrant's Indiana APRN Prescriptive Authority license, and 
Registrant's Indiana CSR Prescriptive Authority license all remain 
expired. State of Indiana License Search, <a href="https://www.mylicense.in.gov/everification/Search.aspx">https://www.mylicense.in.gov/everification/Search.aspx</a> (last visited date of signature of this 
Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed 
to practice nursing nor 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 Order, is not licensed to 
practice nursing nor 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 DEA Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement 
Administration, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#214544400f4045454e0f4055554e534f445852614544400f464e57"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2d49484c034c494942034c5959425f4348545e6d49484c034a425b">[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

[[Page 57928]]

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. 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 
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. 
MW0411049 issued to Cheryl White, 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 Cheryl White, N.P., to renew or 
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of 
Cheryl White, N.P., for additional registration in Indiana. This Order 
is effective October 13, 2026.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
September 2, 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. 2026-18599 Filed 9-10-26; 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>
Indexed from Federal Register on September 11, 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.