Samimi v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRED SAMIMI, M.D., No. 14-71315
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Drug Enforcement Agency
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Fred Samimi, M.D., appeals pro se from the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration (“DEA”) Administrator’s judgment denying his applications for
DEA Certificates of Registration. We have jurisdiction under 21 U.S.C. § 877.
We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, id., and for an
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
abuse of discretion the agency’s decision, Fry v. Drug Enforcement Agency, 353
F.3d 1041, 1043 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The DEA Administrator’s denial of Dr. Samimi’s applications for
Certificates of Registration was not an abuse of discretion because substantial
evidence supported the Administrator’s finding that Dr. Samimi committed acts
that were inconsistent with the public interest. See 21 U.S.C. § 823(f); NLRB v.
Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 48, 345 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion” (citations omitted)); Fry, 353 F.3d at 1043 (agency decision
is not arbitrary and capricious if “based on a consideration of the relevant factors
and there is no clear error of judgment” (citation omitted)). Contrary to Dr.
Samimi’s contentions, the sanction imposed by the Administrator was not
impermissibly severe. See Spencer v. Livestock Comm’n Co. v. Dep’t of Agric.,
841 F.2d 1451, 1456-57 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[T]he employment of a sanction within
the authority of an administrative agency is . . . not rendered invalid in a particular
case because it is more severe than sanctions imposed in other cases . . . Therefore,
mere unevenness in the application of the sanction does not render its application
2 14-71315
in a particular case ‘unwarranted in law.’ ” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-71315