Whether the lower federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant, who was an authorized practitioner with the authority to administer drugs as part of his practice at the time of the alleged offense, due to the lower court's improper reliance on regulatory definitions and testimony outside of the U.S. Code that regulates the distribution of drugs in the practice of medicine?

In other words, did this Court's holding in Loper foreclose the Attorney General's reliance on a CFR to define what constituted a legitimate prescription versus "illegal drug dealing" when the defendant was licensed to administer the controlled substances under the Controlled Substance Act?

Whether the lower federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant due to improper reliance on regulatory definitions outside the U.S. Code that regulate drug distribution in medical practice?