Notice2026-18605
Emran Mohammad, RN, APRN, CNP; 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 57923-57927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-18605]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Emran Mohammad, RN, APRN, CNP; Decision and Order
On May 2, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Emran Mohammad, RN,
APRN, CNP, of Minneapolis, Minnesota (Registrant). OSC, at 1, 7;
Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 7. The
OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of
Registration, No. MM8483024, alleging that Registrant has no state
authority to handle controlled substances and that Registrant's
continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest.
OSC, at 1; RFAAX 1, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1); 824(a)(3);
824(a)(4)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated
November 18, 2025, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on
Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the Declaration from a DEA
Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on April 8, 2025, the DI
contacted Registrant by phone and left a voicemail, as well as
attempted another call later that same day and a third call the next
day. RFAAX 2, at 2. On April 11, 2025, the DI traveled with a second
DI to Registrant's registered address in attempt to personally serve
the OSC to Registrant, but they were informed that Registrant had
only worked at the location for ``a month or two'' and had not been
employed there since March 2024. Id. On April 17, 2025, the DI
traveled with other DEA and law enforcement personnel to a
residential address associated with Registrant in another attempt to
personally serve the OSC to Registrant. Id. at 3. After receiving no
response at the residence, the DI called Registrant's phone number
again as well as left his DEA business card and a copy of the OSC at
the residence. Id. Later that day, the DI received a phone call from
someone who identified herself as an occupant at the residence. Id.
This individual told the DI that she and Registrant had a child in
common, that she had not seen Registrant since September 2024, that
she broke a key off in a lock on her door to prevent Registrant from
gaining entry, that she last spoke to Registrant on or about April
2025, and that she suspected that Registrant was in a ``sober living
facility'' in California. Id. This individual also told the DI that
DEA had the correct phone number and email address for Registrant.
Id. On the same date, the DI emailed a copy of the OSC to
Registrant's email address and did not receive any indication of
delivery failure nor a response from Registrant. Id.; see also id.,
Attachment 1. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the OSC alleged that Registrant is ``currently
without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise
handle controlled substances in the State of Minnesota, the state in
which [he is] registered with DEA.'' OSC, at 3; RFAAX 1, at 3 (citing
21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). The OSC also alleged that Registrant has ``a
chronic history of substance abuse, including controlled substances,
and non-compliance with substance abuse treatment and with a DEA
[Memorandum of Agreement].'' OSC, at 5; RFAAX 1, at 5 (citing 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1)(B), (D)-(E)).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Agency need not adjudicate the criminal violations
alleged in the OSC. Ruan v. United States, 597 U.S. 450 (2022)
(decided in the context of criminal proceedings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 18, 2025, the Government submitted an RFAA requesting
that the Agency issue a default final order revoking Registrant's
registration. RFAA, at 6-7. After carefully reviewing the entire record
and conducting the analysis as set forth in more detail below, the
Agency grants the Government's request for final agency action and
revokes Registrant's registration.
I. Default Determination
Under 21 CFR 1301.43, a registrant entitled to a hearing who fails
to file a
[[Page 57924]]
timely hearing request ``within 30 days after the date of receipt of
the [OSC] . . . shall be deemed to have waived their right to a hearing
and to be in default'' unless ``good cause'' is established for the
failure. 21 CFR 1301.43(a) & (c)(1). In the absence of a demonstration
of good cause, a registrant who fails to timely file an answer also is
``deemed to have waived their right to a hearing and to be in
default.'' 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(2). Unless excused, a default is deemed to
constitute ``an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].'' 21
CFR 1301.43(e).
Here, the OSC notified Registrant of his right to file a written
request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he
would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in
default. OSC, at 5-6; RFAAX 1, at 5-6 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43).
According to the Government's RFAA, Registrant failed to request a
hearing. RFAA, at 4. Thus, the Agency finds that Registrant is in
default and therefore has admitted to the factual allegations in the
OSC. 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
II. Loss of State Authority
Findings of Fact
According to the OSC, on or about October 8, 2024, the Minnesota
Board of Nursing indefinitely suspended both Registrant's Minnesota
advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) license and Registrant's
Minnesota registered nurse (RN) license. OSC, at 3; RFAAX 1, at 3.
Registrant's licenses were indefinitely suspended due to Registrant's
relapse of drug use--including amphetamine (a Schedule II stimulant)
and methamphetamine (A Schedule II stimulant)--and Registrant's
violation of the conditions of a consent order. OSC, at 3; RFAAX 1, at
3. According to Minnesota online records, of which the Agency takes
official notice,\3\ both Registrant's Minnesota Certified Nurse
Practitioner (CNP) license \4\ and Registrant's Minnesota RN license
are suspended. Minnesota Board of Nursing, Verify a License, <a href="https://mn.gov/boards/nursing/verify-a-license">https://mn.gov/boards/nursing/verify-a-license</a> (last visited date of signature
of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not
licensed as a CNP nor licensed to practice nursing in Minnesota, the
state in which he is registered with DEA.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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\ CNP is one of the four types of APRN roles in Minnesota.
Minnesota Board of Nursing, Advanced Practice Registered Nurse
(APRN) Licensure General Information, <a href="https://mn.gov/boards/nursing/advanced-practice/advanced-practice-registered-nurse-">https://mn.gov/boards/nursing/advanced-practice/advanced-practice-registered-nurse-</a>(aprn)-
licensure-general-information/.
\5\ 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 as a
CNP nor licensed to practice nursing in Minnesota. 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#cbafaeaae5aaafafa4e5aabfbfa4b9a5aeb2b88bafaeaae5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="056160642b6461616a2b6471716a776b607c76456160642b626a73">[email 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, 71372
(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012);
Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR at 71371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates,
M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR
51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988);
Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Minnesota statute, a ``licensed advanced practice
registered nurse'' is among those who ``in the course of professional
practice only, may prescribe, administer, and dispense a controlled
substance . . . .'' Minn. Stat. Sec. 152.12, Subd. 1 (2025).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
currently lacks authority to practice as an APRN in Minnesota because
Registrant's Minnesota APRN license is suspended. As discussed above,
an APRN must be licensed as such to handle controlled substances in
Minnesota. Thus, because Registrant currently lacks authority to
practice as an APRN in Minnesota, and, therefore, is not authorized to
handle controlled substances in Minnesota, Registrant is not eligible
to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency finds that
Registrant's lack of state authority to handle controlled substances
provides an independent basis for revocation of Registrant's DEA
registration. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3).
III. Public Interest
Applicable Law
As the Supreme Court stated in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1
(2005), ``the main objectives of the CSA were to conquer drug abuse and
control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled
substances.'' 545 U.S. at 12. Gonzales explained that:
Congress was particularly concerned with the need to prevent the
diversion of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels. To
effectuate these goals, Congress devised a closed regulatory system
making it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess
any controlled substance except in a manner authorized by the CSA .
. . . The CSA and its implementing regulations set forth strict
requirements regarding registration, labeling and packaging,
production quotas, drug security, and recordkeeping.
Id. at 12-14.
The OSC's allegations concern drug abuse and, therefore, go to the
heart of the CSA's ``closed regulatory system'' specifically designed
``to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate
traffic in controlled
[[Page 57925]]
substances,'' and ``to prevent the diversion of drugs from legitimate
to illicit channels.'' Id. at 12-14, 27.
Findings of Fact
In light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the
OSC are deemed admitted. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Accordingly, Registrant
admits that on or about July 17, 2019, the Blue Earth County District
Court, State of Minnesota, found that Registrant was mentally ill and
chemically dependent based on a diagnosis of methamphetamine induced
psychosis and methamphetamine use disorder. OSC, at 3. Registrant
admits that this court activity followed an incident of self-harm, on
or about June 27, 2019, in which Registrant intentionally attempted to
overdose on methamphetamine. Id. Registrant admits that the Court found
that Registrant posed a substantial likelihood of physical harm to
himself or others and released him to the custody of Blue Earth County
Human Services. Id.
Registrant admits that on or about September 7, 2019, Registrant
relapsed by using methamphetamine. Id. Registrant admits that on or
about September 10, 2019, the Minnesota Board of Nursing entered an
order automatically suspending both Registrant's Minnesota APRN license
and Registrant's Minesota RN license based on his civil commitment. Id.
Registrant admits that on or about July 28, 2020, Registrant was
convicted in the Hennepin County District Court, State of Minnesota, of
Fleeing a Police Officer by a Means Other Than a Motor Vehicle based on
an incident that took place on or about March 10, 2020, during which
Registrant was experiencing methamphetamine psychosis. Id. at 3-4.
Registrant admits that on or about October 1, 2020, Registrant was
convicted in the Blue Earth County District Court, State of Minnesota,
of Driving While Impaired based on an incident that took place on or
about December 9, 2019, in which Registrant was operating a motor
vehicle with amphetamine and methamphetamine in his body. Id. at 4.
Registrant admits that on or about September 29, 2021, Registrant
again used methamphetamine. Id. Registrant admits that on or about
February 3, 2022, the Minnesota Board of Nursing rescinded the
September 10, 2019 order and suspended both Registrant's Minnesota APRN
license and Registrant's Minnesota RN license based on Registrant's
drug use and conviction. Id.
Registrant admits that on or about August 3, 2023, the Minnesota
Board of Nursing rescinded the February 3, 2022 order and reinstated
both Registrant's Minnesota APRN license and Registrant's Minnesota RN
license with a stayed suspension, conditions, and monitoring. Id.
Registrant admits that the terms included that Registrant would
completely abstain from all controlled or abusable mood-altering
substances. Id.
Registrant admits that on or about November 28, 2023, Registrant
and DEA entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Id. Registrant
admits that the terms of the MOA included, in pertinent part: that
Registrant would not ingest, inject, insert, inhale, or in any other
manner allow for any controlled substance to enter his body, unless
administered, prescribed, or dispensed to him for a legitimate medical
purpose by a licensed practitioner acting in the usual course of
professional practice; that Registrant was prohibited from possessing
any Schedule II through V controlled substance; that should
Registrant's license become suspended or revoked by the Minnesota Board
of Nursing, Registrant would notify the DEA Minneapolis-St. Paul
District Office and surrender his DEA registration within 24 hours;
that Registrant would abide by all federal, state, and local laws and
regulations pertaining to controlled substances; and that Registrant
would abide by all law, regulations, and requirements of the Minnesota
Board of Nursing. Id.
Registrant admits that Registrant relapsed several times since
December 2023, including the use of methamphetamine and fentanyl (a
Schedule II opioid), and that each relapse was a violation of the MOA.
Id.
Registrant admits that on March 8, 2024, Registrant submitted a
specimen for toxicology screening, which tested positive for
amphetamine and methamphetamine. Id. Registrant admits that his use of
amphetamine and methamphetamine was a violation of the MOA. Id.
Registrant admits that on March 26, 2024, Registrant notified DEA
that he relapsed. Id. at 5. Registrant admits that his relapse was a
violation of the MOA. Id.
Registrant admits that on or about August 9, 2024, the Minnesota
Board of Nursing entered an order on both Registrant's Minnesota APRN
license and Registrant's Minnesota RN license, immediately suspending
both licenses due to Registrant violating the August 3, 2023 order. Id.
Registrant admits that, as noted supra II., on October 8, 2024, the
Minnesota Board of Nursing indefinitely suspended both licenses due to
Registrant's noncompliance, and both licenses remain suspended as of
the date of this Decision and Order. Id.
Registrant admits that he failed to notify the DEA Minneapolis-St.
Paul District Office of the suspension of his licenses by the Minnesota
Board of Nursing. Id. Registrant admits that his failure to notify DEA
within 24 hours of the suspension was a violation of the MOA. Id.
Registrant admits that he refused to surrender his DEA registration
within 24 hours of the Minnesota Board of Nursing suspending his
licenses. Id. Registrant also admits that on April 19, 2024, he refused
to surrender his DEA registration. Id. Registrant admits that his
refusal to surrender his DEA registration under these circumstances
violated the MOA. Id.
In consideration of the above, the Agency finds substantial record
evidence that Registrant has a chronic history of substance abuse,
including controlled substances, as well as a chronic history of
noncompliance with substance abuse treatment and noncompliance with a
DEA MOA.
Public Interest Determination
Legal Background on Public Interest Determinations
When the CSA's requirements are not met, the Attorney General ``may
deny, suspend, or revoke [a] registration if . . . the [registrant's]
registration would be `inconsistent with the public interest.' ''
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 251 (2006) (quoting 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(4)). In the case of a ``practitioner,'' Congress directed the
Attorney General to consider five factors in making the public interest
determination. Id.; 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The five factors are:
(A) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board
or professional disciplinary authority.
(B) The [registrant's] experience in dispensing, or conducting
research with respect to controlled substances.
(C) The [registrant's] conviction record under Federal or State
laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of
controlled substances.
(D) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws
relating to controlled substances.
(E) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and
safety.
21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The five factors are considered in the disjunctive. Gonzales v.
Oregon, 546 U.S. at 292-93 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (``It is well
established that these factors are to be considered in the
disjunctive,'' quoting In re Arora, 60 FR 4447, 4448 (1995)); Robert A.
Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003). Each factor is
[[Page 57926]]
weighed on a case-by-case basis. David H. Gillis, M.D., 58 FR 37507,
37508 (1993); see Morall v. Drug Enf't Admin., 412 F.3d 165, 181 (D.C.
Cir. 2005) (describing the Agency's adjudicative process as ``applying
a multi-factor test through case-by-case adjudication,'' quoting
LeMoyne-Owen Coll. v. N.L.R.B., 357 F.3d 55, 61 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). Any
one factor, or combination of factors, may be decisive, David H.
Gillis, M.D., 58 FR at 37508, and the Agency ``may give each factor the
weight . . . deem[ed] appropriate in determining whether a registration
should be revoked or an application for registration denied.'' Morall,
412 F.3d. at 185 n.2 (Henderson, J., concurring) (quoting Robert A.
Smith, M.D., 70 FR 33207, 33208 (2007)); see also Penick Corp. v. Drug
Enf't Admin., 491 F.3d 483, 490 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
Moreover, while the Agency is required to consider each of the
factors, it ``need not make explicit findings as to each one.'' MacKay
v. Drug Enf't Admin., 664 F.3d 808, 816 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Volkman v. U.S. Drug Enf't Admin., 567 F.3d 215, 222 (6th Cir. 2009));
Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, LLC v. Drug Enf't Admin., 881 F.3d
823, 830 (11th Cir. 2018); Hoxie v. Drug Enf't Admin., 419 F.3d 477,
482 (6th Cir. 2005). ``In short, . . . the Agency is not required to
mechanically count up the factors and determine how many favor the
Government and how many favor the registrant. Rather, it is an inquiry
which focuses on protecting the public interest; what matters is the
seriousness of the registrant's misconduct.'' Jayam Krishna-Iyer, M.D.,
74 FR 459, 462 (2009). Accordingly, as the Tenth Circuit has
recognized, Agency decisions have explained that findings under a
single factor can support the revocation of a registration. MacKay, 664
F.3d at 821.
The Government has the burden of proof in this proceeding. 21 CFR
1301.44(e).
Registrant's Registration Is Inconsistent With the Public Interest
While the Agency has considered all the public interest factors of
21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1),\8\ the Agency finds that the Government's evidence
in support of its prima facie case best fits within Factor E. OSC, at
3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As to Factor A, evidence is considered under Factor A when
it reflects ``the recommendation of the appropriate State licensing
board or professional disciplinary authority.'' 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1)(A). Here, as found above, see supra II., the Minnesota
Board of Nursing indefinitely suspended both Registrant's Minnesota
APRN license and Registrant's Minnesota RN license due to
Registrant's relapse of drug use and Registrant violating the
conditions of a consent order. Accordingly, the Agency finds that
Factor A weighs towards a finding that Registrant's registration is
inconsistent with the public interest. As to Factors B and D,
evidence is considered under these two factors when it reflects
experience dispensing controlled substances and compliance or non-
compliance with laws related to controlled substances. Kareem
Hubbard, M.D., 87 FR 21156, 21162 (2022). Here, there is no evidence
in the record reflecting Respondent's experience dispensing
controlled substances nor evidence in the record reflecting
Respondent's compliance or non-compliance with laws related to
controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(B), (D). As to Factor C,
there is no evidence in the record that Registrant has been
convicted of any federal or state law offense ``relating to the
manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.''
21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(C). However, as Agency cases have noted, ``the
absence of such a conviction is of considerably less consequence in
the public interest inquiry'' and is therefore not dispositive.
Dewey C. MacKay, M.D., 75 FR at 49973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence is considered under Factor E when it constitutes ``[s]uch
other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.'' 21
U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(E). Congress has declared that ``improper use of
controlled substances [has] a substantial and detrimental effect on the
health and general welfare of the American people.'' 21 U.S.C. 801(2);
see also 21 U.S.C. 823(l). Further, the Agency has consistently found
that a registrant's self-abuse of controlled substances is proper to
consider under Factor E as conduct that threatens public health and
safety. Brewster Drug, Inc., 85 FR 19020, 19026 (2020) (collecting
cases). The Agency has also consistently found that a registrant's
failure to comply with a DEA MOA is proper to consider under Factor E
as conduct that threatens public health and safety. Brian Thomas
Nichol, M.D., 83 FR 47352, 47364-65 (2018) (citing Erwin E. Feldman,
D.O., 76 FR 16835, 16838 (2011)).
Here, as found above, Registrant is deemed to have admitted and the
Agency finds that Registrant has a chronic history of substance abuse,
including controlled substances, as well as a chronic history of
noncompliance with substance abuse treatment and noncompliance with a
DEA MOA. See supra. Notably, Registrant's substance abuse included
instances of self-harm, fleeing from law enforcement, and driving while
impaired, demonstrating that Registrant posed a clear danger to himself
and others. The Agency therefore finds that Factor E weighs towards a
finding that Registrant's registration is inconsistent with the public
interest.
In sum, the Agency finds that after considering the factors of 21
U.S.C. 823(g)(1), Registrant's continued registration is ``inconsistent
with the public interest.'' 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). Accordingly, the
Government satisfied its prima facie burden of showing that
Registrant's continued registration would be ``inconsistent with the
public interest.'' Id. The Agency also finds that there is insufficient
mitigating evidence to rebut the Government's prima facie case. Thus,
the only remaining issue is whether, in spite of Registrant's
misconduct, Registrant can be trusted with a registration.
IV. Sanction
Where, as here, the Government has met the burden of showing that
Registrant's registration is inconsistent with the public interest, the
burden shifts to Registrant to show why he can be entrusted with a
registration. Morall, 412 F.3d. at 174; Jones Total Health Care
Pharmacy, LLC v. Drug Enf't Admin., 881 F.3d 823, 830 (11th Cir. 2018);
Garrett Howard Smith, M.D., 83 FR 18882, 18,904 (2018). The issue of
trust is necessarily a fact-dependent determination based on the
circumstances presented by the individual registrant. Jeffrey Stein,
M.D., 84 FR 46968, 46972 (2019); see also Jones Total Health Care
Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 833. Moreover, as past performance is the best
predictor of future performance, the Agency requires that a registrant
who has committed acts inconsistent with the public interest accept
responsibility for those acts and demonstrate that he will not engage
in future misconduct. See Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at
833; ALRA Labs, Inc. v. Drug Enf't Admin., 54 F.3d 450, 452 (7th Cir.
1995). The Agency requires a registrant's unequivocal acceptance of
responsibility. Janet S. Pettyjohn, D.O., 89 FR 82639, 82641 (2024);
Mohammed Asgar, M.D., 83 FR 29569, 29573 (2018); see also Jones Total
Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 830-31. In addition, a registrant's
candor during the investigation and hearing is an important factor in
determining acceptance of responsibility and the appropriate sanction.
See Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 830-31; Hoxie, 419
F.3d at 483-84. Further, the Agency considers the egregiousness and
extent of the misconduct as significant factors in determining the
appropriate sanction. See Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at
834 & n.4. The Agency also considers the need to deter similar acts by
a registrant and by the community of registrants. Jeffrey Stein, M.D.,
84 FR at 46972-73.
Here, Registrant did not request a hearing or answer the
allegations in the OSC and was therefore deemed to be in default. See
supra I. To date, Registrant has not filed a motion with the Office
[[Page 57927]]
of the Administrator to excuse the default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1).
Registrant has thus failed to answer the allegations contained in the
OSC and has not otherwise availed himself of the opportunity to refute
the Government's case. As such, Registrant has not accepted
responsibility for the proven violations, has made no representations
regarding his future compliance with the CSA, and has not demonstrated
that he can be trusted with registration. Accordingly, the Agency will
order the revocation of Registrant's registration.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21
U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate
of Registration No. MM8483024 issued to Emran Mohammad, RN, APRN, CNP.
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 application of Emran
Mohammad, RN, APRN, CNP, to renew or modify this registration, as well
as any other pending application of Emran Mohammad, RN, APRN, CNP, for
additional registration in Minnesota. 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. 2026-18605 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.