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]

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]

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 ( printed 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, mn.gov/​boards/​nursing/​verify-a-license (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]

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. § 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]

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. § 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 ( printed 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]

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 ( printed 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.

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 also21 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 ( printed 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 .