Je veux savoir à propos de…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

30496

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 8, 2021 / Notices
821, 831 1985 This Court has recognized on several occasions over many years that an agencys decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agencys absolute discretion.. Instead, agencies exercise their investigative and prosecutorial discretion based on matters such as enforcement priorities and the availability of resources. See, e.g., id. at 83132.
Further, Petitioner has had, and continues to have, the option of submitting an application for a new DEA registration. The Agencys decisions make clear that an applicants past actions that violate the law need not result in her being denied a DEA
registration indefinitely. See, e.g., Michele L. Martinho, M.D., 86 FR 24012
2021.
Regarding her allegation that the sanction I assessed in my April 12, 2021
Decision/Order is excessive, unjust, and disproportionate to her actions, Petitioner neither submitted evidence for the record during the hearing on the OSC nor now submits evidence that substantiates it. My April 21, 2021
Decision/Order, however, explains how violations that I found Petitioner had committed go to the heart of the CSA
and its implementing regulations, and rejects her arguments that minimize applicable legal requirements. See, e.g., 86 FR at 19024. Accordingly, I do not find persuasive Petitioners arguments that there is a substantial likelihood that she will prevail on the merits upon appellate review, and I reject them.
Petitioners irreparable injury arguments are predictions that she does not tether to existing or new record evidence. For example, as already discussed, Petitioner provides an address for herself in Las Vegas, Nevada in the pro se review petition she recently filed in the District of Columbia Circuit. Supra n.1. There is no record evidence, and she submitted no new evidence along with this or her Review Petition filing, that Petitioner is registered in Nevada or even that she is licensed to practice medicine in Nevada. Petitioners irreparable injury arguments related to any future loss by her of earned income, therefore, are without a sufficient basis in record evidence. Accordingly, I reject them.
Further, Petitioners loss of earned income claims are of a generic nature that any practitioner whose registration had been revoked or suspended could make. Even if Petitioner had submitted record evidence substantiating these predictions, the CSA does not direct me to consider her loss of earned income or potential loss of earned income.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:36 Jun 07, 2021

Jkt 253001

Accordingly, I do not accept Petitioners irreparable injury arguments.
Nken makes clear that the first two factors of the traditional standard are the most critical. 556 U.S. at 434. It also explains that, if the applicant satisfies the first two factors, the traditional stay inquiry calls for assessing the harm to the opposing party and weighing the public interest. Id. at 435. Here, Petitioner has not satisfied either of the first two factors. Supreme Court case law makes clear that I need not address Petitioners arguments regarding the third and fourth stay factors. Id. For the sake of having a complete record, however, I shall do so.
Assuming, arguendo, the accuracy of Petitioners arguments that she has never been accused of harming a person, and of her suggestion that the third factor addresses such harm, I find that the legal violations I sustained in my April 12, 2021 Decision/Order do not include harm to a person among their elements. Accordingly, I find Petitioners third factor arguments to be irrelevant, and I reject them.
Fourth, even if the record evidence substantiates Petitioners public interest claims, which it does not, the Agency has rejected community impact arguments. See, e.g., Perry County Food & Drug, 80 FR 70084 2015.
Accordingly, I reject Petitioners public interest arguments.
Having determined that Petitioner has not met her burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of my discretion to stay enforcement of the sanction I ordered on April 12, 2021, pending appellate review, I deny her Motion to Stay.
It is so ordered.
Dated: May 11, 2021.
D. Christopher Evans, Acting Administrator.
FR Doc. 202111982 Filed 6721; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 441009P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OMB Number 11030102

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Community Oriented Policing Services COPS
Progress Report Community Oriented Policing Services, Department of Justice.
ACTION: 60-Day notice.
AGENCY:

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services COPS, Department of Justice DOJ, will be submitting the following information
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00096

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

collection request to the Office of Management and Budget OMB for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 60 days for public comment August 9, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Lashon M. Hilliard, Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 145 N Street NE, Washington, DC 20530, 2023055245.
Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530 or sent to OIRA_submissions@omb.eop.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
Evaluate the accuracy of the agencys estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of This Information Collection 1 Type of Information Collection:
Revision of a currently approved collection.
2 Title of the Form/Collection: COPS
Progress Report.
3 Agency form number: 11030102
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
4 Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief
E:FRFM08JNN1.SGM

08JNN1