Kirk v. Mullen, No. 83-3575

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore KEITH and CONTIE, Circuit Judges, and WALINSKI; KEITH
Citation749 F.2d 297
PartiesPhilip E. KIRK, M.D., Petitioner, v. Francis M. MULLEN, Jr.; Drug Enforcement Administration, Respondents.
Docket NumberNo. 83-3575
Decision Date12 September 1984

Page 297

749 F.2d 297
Philip E. KIRK, M.D., Petitioner,
v.
Francis M. MULLEN, Jr.; Drug Enforcement Administration, Respondents.
No. 83-3575.
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
Argued Aug. 9, 1984.
Decided Sept. 12, 1984.

Page 298

Frank E. Haddad, Jr. (argued), Louisville, Ky., for petitioner.

Charles E. Pazar (argued), Drug Enforcement Admin., Washington, D.C., for respondents.

Before KEITH and CONTIE, Circuit Judges, and WALINSKI, District Judge. *

KEITH, Circuit Judge.

This is a petition for review of a decision by the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration which revoked the certificate of registration of the petitioner, Dr. Philip E. Kirk. The certification of registration authorized Dr. Kirk to distribute certain controlled substances. For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the Administrator is affirmed.

On November 9, 1982, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) directed an Order to Show Cause to Dr. Philip E. Kirk. The order was issued under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 824(d) to revoke DEA Certificate of Registration AK1370612 which had previously been issued to the petitioner. The statutory predicate for the order was the petitioner's felony conviction on May 9, 1977, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, on one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 846; and 47 counts of unlawful distribution of Schedule II controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1).

The petitioner replied to the order by filing a "position statement" with the administrative law judge (ALJ) who presides over DEA administrative proceedings. In this statement the petitioner contends that the DEA was aware of his 1977 conviction when he applied for DEA registration in 1981, and therefore the ex post facto clause of the Constitution bars the DEA from now proceeding against his registration. The ALJ ordered the DEA to respond to petitioner's statement.

The DEA response included an affidavit from James M. Sheahan, the Chief of the Registration Unit of the DEA. Mr. Sheahan was the official charged with the custody and control of all documents related to the registration of practitioners. Mr. Sheahan stated that his unit registers approximately 600,000 DEA registrants a year, at a rate of approximately 50,000 applications for registration a month. He stated that the registration of the petitioner was forwarded from DEA headquarters in Washington, D.C. to the DEA office in

Page 299

Chicago (then the regional office responsible for Louisville, Kentucky). The Chicago DEA office approved the application itself, rather than following normal procedures and referring the application to the St. Louis DEA office for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 practice notes
  • United States v. Bogomol, 18-11486
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • August 13, 2021
    ...Davis, the government also contends that Bogomol's consent was voluntary because the agents did not "intentionally deceive[]" Bogomol. 749 F.2d at 297. In Davis, law enforcement officers gained entry to the defendant's home and consent to search it based on the officers' statement that they......
  • U.S. v. Lopez, No. 89-2598
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • August 29, 1990
    ...the agents found the marijuana under the plywood. Id. Nor did an agent induce Lopez's consent through any form of deception. Davis, 749 F.2d at 297. Lopez's response of "sure" when the agent asked if he could look in the truck could be viewed as indicative of cooperation. Page 1011 Gonzalez......
  • Fitzhugh v. Drug Enforcement Admin., No. 86-1012
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 24, 1987
    ...authorized to revoke or suspend the registration of individuals convicted of felonies relating to controlled substances. Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297, 299-300 (6th Cir.1984). Dr. Fitzhugh clearly fell into this category, and the revocation of his registration was within the administrator's ......
  • Pearce v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Drug Enforcement Admin., No. 87-4117
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • December 5, 1988
    ...expressly found that petitioner has been convicted of a drug-related felony, a sufficient basis for revocation ...)". In Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297, 299-300 (6th Cir.1984), the court said, "Under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 824 the Administrator of the DEA is authorized to revoke or suspend the regist......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • United States v. Bogomol, 18-11486
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • August 13, 2021
    ...government also contends that Bogomol's consent was voluntary because the agents did not "intentionally deceive[]" Bogomol. 749 F.2d at 297. In Davis, law enforcement officers gained entry to the defendant's home and consent to search it based on the officers' statement that they ......
  • U.S. v. Lopez, No. 89-2598
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • August 29, 1990
    ...the agents found the marijuana under the plywood. Id. Nor did an agent induce Lopez's consent through any form of deception. Davis, 749 F.2d at 297. Lopez's response of "sure" when the agent asked if he could look in the truck could be viewed as indicative of cooperation. Page 101......
  • Fitzhugh v. Drug Enforcement Admin., No. 86-1012
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 24, 1987
    ...authorized to revoke or suspend the registration of individuals convicted of felonies relating to controlled substances. Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297, 299-300 (6th Cir.1984). Dr. Fitzhugh clearly fell into this category, and the revocation of his registration was within the administrator's ......
  • Pearce v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Drug Enforcement Admin., No. 87-4117
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • December 5, 1988
    ...found that petitioner has been convicted of a drug-related felony, a sufficient basis for revocation ...)". In Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297, 299-300 (6th Cir.1984), the court said, "Under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 824 the Administrator of the DEA is authorized to revoke or suspend the regist......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT