FRED SAMIMI V. USDEA, No. 14-71315 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRED SAMIMI, M.D., U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-71315 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
