[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1099-1103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00006]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Sohail Mamdani, M.D.; Decision and Order

I. Introduction

    On July 8, 2021, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Sohail Mamdani, M.D. 
(Respondent), of Los Banos, California. Request for Final Agency Action 
(RFAA) Exhibit No. (RFAAX) 13, at 1, 8.\1\ The OSC proposes the 
revocation of Respondent's DEA Registration No. FM2871564, pursuant to 
21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and 823(f). Id. at 1. The OSC more specifically 
alleges that Respondent wrote ``fraudulent prescriptions for controlled 
substances'' for himself using the names of ``multiple fictitious 
patients,'' his wife, and his father on his own prescription pad. Id. 
at 2. The OSC further alleges that he wrote ``fraudulent prescriptions 
for controlled substances'' for himself using his name and the names of 
fictitious

[[Page 1100]]

patients on the prescription pads of other doctors.\2\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Also referred to as ``Sohail Mamdani, D.O.'' RFAAX 1, at 1.
    \2\ The OSC also alleges that Respondent ``filled prescriptions 
issued to . . . [him by his] father-in-law, despite knowing'' that 
his father-in-law's registration had previously been surrendered. 
OSC, at 2; contra RFAA, at 11 (``Given Respondent's status as a 
doctor and the highly regulated nature of controlled substance 
prescriptions, it is extremely unlikely Respondent was unaware of 
his father-in-law's surrendered registration at the time he accepted 
and filled those prescriptions.''); see also infra section II.C., 
n.9.
    The OSC further alleges that Respondent lacked candor by 
assuring DEA investigators, on November 9, 2020, that he was no 
longer issuing controlled substance prescriptions to his wife ``as 
she had found a primary care physician,'' while continuing to do so. 
OSC, at 6-7. Given the seriousness and extent of Respondent's 
founded violations, as set out in this Decision, the Agency need 
not, and does not, adjudicate the OSC's lack of candor allegations.
    The OSC also alleges violations of 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(2) and (3). 
OSC, at 3-6; see also RFAAX 6-12. Given the seriousness and extent 
of Respondent's violations of other federal legal requirements and 
his violations of California statute, the Agency need not, and does 
not, consider the OSC's 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(2) and (3) allegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respondent submitted a written waiver of hearing with a written 
statement and a proposed corrective action plan (PCAP). RFAAX 16 and 
RFAAX 14; see also RFAAX 17, at 1-2.\3\ The Government denied 
Respondent's request to discontinue or defer administrative proceedings 
and stated its determination that ``there is no potential 
modification'' of his PCAP ``that could or would alter . . . [the] 
decision in this regard.'' RFAAX 15, at 1. Given the seriousness and 
extent of Respondent's founded violations, infra sections II.C., 
III.B., and IV., the Agency agrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Government argues that Respondent's hearing waiver with 
written statement was submitted untimely and improperly and, 
therefore, is inadmissible and ``should not be considered in 
adjudication . . . and issuance of a final order.'' RFAA, at 7. The 
Agency finds that on August 13, 2022, within 30 days of service of 
the OSC, Respondent sent an email to the Agency containing his 
hearing waiver with written statement; Respondent also mailed a copy 
of the hearing waiver with written statement which was received by 
the Agency on or about August 16, 2022. RFAAX 17, at 1; RFAAX 16, at 
1. Because Respondent substantively complied with the OSC's 
instructions and because the Government did in fact receive the 
hearing waiver and written statement within 30 days, the Agency will 
consider Respondent's hearing waiver with written statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having thoroughly analyzed the record and applicable law, the 
Agency summarizes its findings and conclusions: (1) the Government 
presented a prima facie case that Respondent violated federal and 
California law, (2) Respondent attempted, but failed, to rebut the 
Government's prima facie case, and (3) substantial record evidence, 
including Respondent's own written statement and the sworn declaration 
of a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI), shows that the extent of 
Respondent's legal violations calls for the revocation of his 
registration. Accordingly, the Agency will revoke Respondent's 
registration. Infra Order.

II. Findings of Fact

A. The Government's Case

    The Agency finds that the RFAA includes the sworn declaration of 
the DI and about 400 pages of prescription and prescription-related 
exhibits, among other documentary evidence, the content of which is 
mostly unrebutted. Infra section II.B. The DI Declaration, among other 
things, certifies exhibits submitted with the RFAA and describes a 
meeting of Respondent, Respondent's attorney, a DEA Group Supervisor, 
and the DI at the office of Respondent's attorney on July 31, 2020. 
RFAAX 2, at 1.
    Based on the DI Declaration, the Agency finds substantial record 
evidence that the July 31, 2020 meeting took place as described in the 
DI Declaration and that Respondent, during the meeting, admitted to 
misconduct. Id. at 1-2. The Agency finds substantial record evidence 
that Respondent admitted that ``he fraudulently prescribed zolpidem 
tartrate (a Schedule IV controlled substance) to . . . [nine] 
fictitious patients to obtain controlled substances for personal use'' 
between 2015 and 2020, and that ``he fraudulently prescribed alprazolam 
(a Schedule IV controlled substance) to [two] fictitious patients'' 
between 2015 and 2020. Id. at 2. The Agency further finds substantial 
record evidence that Respondent admitted that ``he fraudulently issued 
prescriptions for zolpidem tartrate to his wife and . . . would use the 
medication for himself'' between 2016 and 2020, and that ``he 
fraudulently issued prescriptions for zolpidem tartrate to his father, 
but that his father never received the medication and that Respondent 
would consume the medication for his personal use'' between 2015 and 
2020. Id. The Agency also finds that Respondent admitted that ``he 
issued prescriptions for his father and to his wife . . . without 
creating or maintaining medical records for any of those prescriptions, 
in violation of California law.'' \4\ Id. Additionally, the Agency 
finds substantial record evidence, based on the DI Declaration, that 
Respondent issued controlled substance prescriptions to himself and to 
two of his fictitious patients under the guise of three different 
doctors.\5\ Id. at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The DI Declaration also states that during the July 31, 2020 
meeting, DEA investigators told Respondent that he ``was violating 
the Controlled Substances Act'' each time he issued a fraudulent 
prescription to a fictitious patient or to his wife ``in order to 
obtain controlled substances for personal use.'' RFAAX 2, at 3.
    \5\ The DI Declaration includes substantial record evidence that 
each of the three doctors denied issuing these controlled substance 
prescriptions.
     According to the DI Declaration, Dr. I.A. informed the DI that 
she worked with Respondent ``in the fall of 2019 where he shared a 
locked cabinet containing [her] prescription pads.'' RFAAX 2, at 3; 
infra Section II.B.
     The DI Declaration states that pharmacy security footage shows 
Respondent picking up two of the allegedly illegal controlled 
substance prescriptions. The DI Declaration, however, neither 
attaches the security footage nor provides an evidentiary foundation 
for the assertion that it shows Respondent picking up the two 
prescriptions. Accordingly, this Decision gives no weight to 
security footage evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Respondent's Case

    The Agency finds that the RFAA attaches Respondent's PCAP, 
Respondent's correspondence addressing his PCAP, his hearing waiver, 
and his written statement, and an email chain that includes an emailed 
version of Respondent's correspondence.\6\ RFAAX 14; RFAAX 16; RFAAX 
17. The Agency finds substantial record evidence that, in these 
documents, among other things, Respondent admits to writing controlled 
substance prescriptions ``to more than just [him]self in order to 
satisfy . . . [his] habits,'' does not ``attempt to make any . . . 
excuse for . . . [his] discreditable habit,'' acknowledges that he 
``violate[d] the rules by which a physician should abide to maintain a 
DEA license,'' and ``take[s] full responsibility for the wrong . . . 
[he] ha[s] done.'' RFAAX 16, at 1; RFAAX 17, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ According to DEA regulations, a person who is entitled to a 
hearing may waive a hearing and submit a written statement regarding 
his position on the matters of fact and law involved. 21 CFR 
1316.49. The written statement ``shall be considered in light of the 
lack of opportunity for cross-examination in determining the weight 
to be attached to matters of fact asserted therein.'' Id. 
Accordingly, in this matter, when the content of Respondent's 
unsworn submission conflicts with the content of a sworn submission, 
the Agency gives the sworn submission greater weight than 
Respondent's unsworn submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency finds that Respondent also states that he ``cannot 
accept responsibility for'' what he calls ``false additional 
accusations formally written by the DEA in their case'' against him. 
RFAAX 16, at 1; RFAAX 17, at 2. First, Respondent asserts that, ``When 
it first came to my attention that I was under investigation by the 
DEA, I acknowledged my wrong-doing, and not once from that point 
forward did I actually fill another wrongful prescription.'' RFAAX 16, 
at 1; RFAAX 17, at 2. Second, Respondent labels an ``utter 
fabrication'' that ``should be

[[Page 1101]]

abolished from . . . [DEA's] report'' that he wrote a ``prescription'' 
for himself under the name of a ``colleague'' with whom he shared a 
``locker room'' (Dr. I.A.), and asserts that ``[t]here is not a single 
prescription in question regarding this matter, that was wrongfully 
obtained under [his] colleague's name.'' \7\ RFAAX 16, at 1; RFAAX 17, 
at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Agency finds that Respondent also states that ``[t]he 
mere fact that . . . [my colleague's] name is printed on the same 
piece of paper should not translate to my unpermitted possession of 
her Rx pad and furthermore filling anything under her name. This 
multiple-practitioner sharing of a single Rx pad from a common 
location is a widely used practice in the medical field and I was 
surprised to see that the DEA was not only unaware of it but 
furthermore potentiated my `guilt' by including these accusations 
that couldn't be further from the truth.'' RFAAX 16, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the Agency's thorough review of all of the record 
evidence, the Agency finds that neither of these claims of Respondent 
is credible or creditable. First, the Agency finds substantial record 
evidence that Respondent filled a wrongful controlled substance 
prescription after he became aware of DEA's investigation. As already 
stated, the Agency finds that Respondent and his attorney met with a 
DEA investigative team on July 31, 2020. RFAAX 2, at 1. The Agency 
finds substantial record evidence that, on August 29, 2020, Respondent 
filled a controlled substance (alprazolam 2 mg (#30)) prescription 
purportedly issued to him by Dr. Z.A. on August 26, 2020.\8\ RFAAX 6, 
at 2-3. The Agency further finds substantial record evidence that, as 
of September 24, 2020, Dr. Z.A. did not know Respondent, had not 
accepted Respondent as a patient, and had not examined Respondent. 
RFAAX 6, at 1; RFAAX 2, at 2. The Agency finds substantial record 
evidence that Dr. Z.A. did not write the August 26, 2020 alprazolam 2 
mg (#30) prescription for Respondent and that the signature on this 
alprazolam prescription is not Dr. Z.A.'s. RFAAX 6, at 1; RFAAX 2, at 
2. The Agency finds substantial record evidence that Respondent 
wrongfully wrote and, subsequently, filled this controlled substance 
prescription. RFAAX 2, at 2; RFAAX 6, at 3. Accordingly, the Agency 
does not find credible, and does not credit, Respondent's claim that, 
when DEA's investigation of him ``first came'' to his attention, ``not 
once from that point forward did . . . [he] actually fill another 
wrongful prescription.'' RFAAX 16, at 1; RFAAX 17, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Agency notes that RFAAX 11, at 1 is a controlled 
substance prescription (zolpidem 10 mg (#30)) issued to ``Arif 
Hussain,'' one of Respondent's admittedly fictitious patients, by 
Respondent on November 5, 2020. RFAAX 11, at 1, in conjunction with 
RFAAX 2, at 2. The exhibit, though, does not show a ``fill'' date 
and, therefore, does not rebut Respondent's statement that he did 
not ``actually fill'' a wrongful controlled prescription after 
meeting with the DEA investigative team. RFAAX 16, at 1. 
Accordingly, this zolpidem 10 mg (#30) prescription is insufficient 
to rebut Respondent's ``actually fill[ed]'' denial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that 
Respondent wrongfully wrote prescriptions under Dr. I.A.'s name. As 
already stated, the Agency finds that Respondent worked with Dr. I.A. 
in the fall of 2019, and that the two shared a locked cabinet 
containing Dr. I.A.'s prescription pads. RFAAX 2, at 3. The Agency 
finds substantial record evidence that Dr. I.A.'s prescription pads 
also list Respondent's name and the names of three other doctors. RFAAX 
8, at 1, 3, 5, 7. The Agency further finds substantial record evidence 
that Dr. I.A.'s name is clearly checked as the issuer at the top of 
four controlled substance prescriptions written for ``Farida Mamdani'' 
and ``Farooq Mamdani,'' two of Respondent's admittedly fictitious 
patients, and that the fill labels for these prescriptions state that 
Dr. I.A. is the prescriber. RFAAX 8, at 1-8. The Agency also finds 
substantial record evidence that Dr. I.A. denied having these two 
individuals as patients, issuing controlled substance prescriptions for 
them, and signing four controlled substance prescriptions for them. 
RFAAX 2, at 2, 3. Accordingly, the Agency concludes, based on 
substantial record evidence, that Respondent wrote these controlled 
substance prescriptions for his fictitious patients under the name of 
Dr. I.A. Therefore, the Agency does not find credible, and does not 
credit, Respondent's ``utter fabrication'' claim that ``[t]here is not 
a single prescription in question regarding this matter, that was 
wrongfully obtained under my colleague's [Dr. I.A.] name.'' RFAAX 16, 
at 2; RFAAX 17, at 2.
    In sum, based on substantial record evidence, the Agency finds 
neither of Respondent's claims credible or creditable.

C. Allegation That Respondent Issued Controlled Substance Prescriptions 
Without a Legitimate Medical Purpose and Outside the Usual Course of 
Professional Practice

    Having thoroughly analyzed all of the record evidence, including 
Respondent's submissions and admissions, the Agency finds substantial 
record evidence that Respondent wrote controlled substance 
prescriptions for himself using the names of multiple fictitious 
patients, of his wife, and of his father.\9\ RFAAX 2, at 1-3; RFAAX 3-
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Respondent using his prescription pad to issue zolpidem 
tartrate prescriptions to Respondent's admittedly fictitious 
patients between 2015 and 2020: ``Arbazz Ali''--RFAAX 3, at 229-59; 
``Arif Ali''--RFAAX 3, at 1-14; ``Ayaan Ali''--RFAAX 3, at 57-58, 
65-66, 69-70, 75-76, 83-84, 93-94, 97-98, 103-04, 115-16, 123-24, 
131-34; ``Salman Ali''--RFAAX 3, at 191-04; ``Arif Hussain''--RFAAX 
3, at 15-28; ``Farida Mamdani''--RFAAX 3, at 139-42, 145-48, 153-54, 
159-64; ``Farooq Mamdani''--RFAAX 3, at 167-68, 175-78; ``Sana 
Mamdani''--RFAAX 3, at 205-14; ``Ahmad Mameani''--RFAAX 3, at 215-
18, 221-28.
     Respondent using his prescription pad to issue alprazolam 
prescriptions to Respondent's admittedly fictitious patients between 
2015 and 2020: ``Ayaan Ali''--RFAAX 3, at 29-30, 43-46, 49-56, 59-
60, 63-64, 67-68, 71-74, 77-82, 85-92, 95-96, 99-100, 105-14, 117-
22, 125-30, 135-38; ``Farida Mamdani''--RFAAX 3, at 143-44, 149-52, 
155-58, 165-66; ``Farooq Mamdani''--RFAAX 3, at 171-74, 185-90.
     Respondent using his prescription pad to issue zolpidem 
tartrate prescriptions to his wife between 2016 and 2020: RFAAX 4, 
at 273-74, 277-80, 285-86, 305-06, 311-12, 315-18, and 323-24.
     Respondent using his prescription pad to issue alprazolam 
prescriptions to his wife between 2016 and 2020: RFAAX 4, at 269-72, 
275-76, 281-84, 287-304, 307-10, 313-14, and 319-22.
     Respondent using his prescription pad to issue zolpidem 
tartrate prescriptions to his father between 2015 and 2020: RFAAX 5, 
at 325-26, 333-34, 339-40, 345-48, 357-58, and 365-76.
     Respondent using his prescription pad to issue alprazolam 
prescriptions to his father between 2015 and 2020: RFAAX 5, at 327-
28, 331-32, 335-38, 341-44, 349-56, and 359-64.
     The Agency finds that some of the record evidence is irrelevant 
or illegible, as follows:
    RFAAX 3, at 31-40 are too illegible to constitute evidence;
    RFAAX 3, at 41-42 is a controlled substance prescription written 
by Respondent's father-in-law to ``Ayaan Ali,'' one of Respondent's 
fictitious patients. The OSC does not include an allegation to which 
these pages apply and, therefore, the Agency finds that these pages 
are not relevant to this adjudication;
    RFAAX 3, at 47-48 and 61-62 are internally inconsistent about 
the prescriber of this controlled substance prescription and, 
therefore, these pages do not evidence a violation by Respondent;
    RFAAX 3, at 101-02 is a controlled substance prescription 
written on Respondent's pad but, according to the face of the 
exhibit, the prescription was written by a different doctor. 
Accordingly, these pages do not evidence a violation by Respondent;
    The contents of RFAAX 3, at 169-70 and 179-80 do not 
definitively identify the prescriber. Accordingly, there is 
insufficient record evidence that Respondent issued these controlled 
substance prescriptions;
    RFAAX 3, at 181-82 and 219-20 do not clearly show the 
prescriptions' dates. Accordingly, there is insufficient record 
evidence that these pages evidence a noticed violation by 
Respondent;
    RFAAX 3, at 183-84 is a prescription for Augmentin, not a 
controlled substance, issued by Respondent. Accordingly, these pages 
do not evidence a cognizable violation;
    RFAAX 5, at 329-30 does not include clear evidence of the year 
of the prescription's issuance. Accordingly, there is insufficient 
record evidence that these pages evidence a noticed violation by 
Respondent; and
    RFAAX 10, at 397-98 and 417-18 are alprazolam and zolpidem 
tartrate prescriptions issued to Respondent on the pad of Dr. C.S. 
in 2020 and 2019. The Government argues that these pages support the 
allegation that Respondent filled controlled substance prescriptions 
issued to him by his father-in-law knowing that this father-in-law 
previously voluntarily surrendered his registration. This evidence 
does not support that allegation because the prescriber is not 
Respondent's father-in-law. Accordingly, the Agency finds 
insufficient record evidence that these controlled substance 
prescriptions constitute a violation by Respondent.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1102]]

III. Discussion

A. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and Implementing Regulations

    Under Section 304 of the CSA, ``[a] registration . . . to . . . 
distribute[ ] or dispense a controlled substance . . . may be suspended 
or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant . 
. . has committed such acts as would render his registration under 
section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public interest as 
determined by such section.'' 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In the case of a 
``practitioner,'' such as Respondent, Congress directed the Attorney 
General to consider five factors in making the public interest 
determination. 21 U.S.C. 823(f)(1-5). The five factors are considered 
in the disjunctive. Robert A. Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003).
    According to Agency decisions, the Agency ``may rely on any one or 
a combination of factors and may give each factor the weight [it] deems 
appropriate in determining whether'' to revoke a registration. Id.; see 
also Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, LLC v. Drug Enf't Admin., 881 
F.3d 823, 830 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Akhtar-Zaidi v. Drug Enf't 
Admin., 841 F.3d 707, 711 (6th Cir. 2016); MacKay v. Drug Enf't Admin., 
664 F.3d 808, 816 (10th Cir. 2011); Volkman v. U.S. Drug Enf't Admin., 
567 F.3d 215, 222 (6th Cir. 2009); Hoxie v. Drug Enf't Admin., 419 F.3d 
477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005). Moreover, while the Agency is required to 
consider each of the factors, it ``need not make explicit findings as 
to each one.'' MacKay, 664 F.3d at 816 (quoting Volkman, 567 F.3d at 
222); see also Hoxie, 419 F.3d at 482. ``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 459462 (2009). Accordingly, as the Tenth 
Circuit has recognized, findings under a single factor can support the 
revocation of a registration. MacKay, 664 F.3d at 821. In this matter, 
while all of the 21 U.S.C. 823(f) factors have been considered, the 
Government's evidence is confined to Factor Two, Respondent's 
experience in dispensing controlled substances, and Factor Four, 
Respondent's compliance with applicable laws related to controlled 
substances.\10\ OSC, at 2; RFAA, at 8-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Neither Respondent nor the Government purports to offer 
evidence relevant to Factors One, Three, or Five. The Agency 
considered Factors One, Three, and Five and finds that none of them 
is relevant to this adjudication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSA's implementing regulations state that a lawful controlled 
substance order or prescription is one that is ``issued for a 
legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the 
usual course of his professional practice.'' 21 CFR 1306.04(a). As the 
OSC is addressed to Respondent at his registered address in California, 
the Agency also evaluates Respondent's actions for conformance with 
California law.\11\ During the period alleged in the OSC for 
Respondent's violations, California law specifically stated that ``[n]o 
person shall issue a prescription that is false or fictitious in any 
respect.'' Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec.  11157. It also stated that 
``[n]o person shall prescribe, administer, or furnish a controlled 
substance for himself.'' Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec.  11170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 269-71 (2006); see 
also OSC, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Factors Two and Four and the Public Interest

    As already noted, the record, including the content of Respondent's 
submissions, contains substantial evidence that Respondent issued 
controlled substance prescriptions to fictitious individuals and to 
himself. Supra section II. Section 11157 of the California Health & 
Safety Code prohibits the issuance of prescriptions that are ``false or 
fictitious in any respect,'' which Respondent admits he did for a 
plethora of fictitious individuals. Further, section 11170 of the 
California Health & Safety Code prohibits a person from writing 
prescriptions for himself, which Respondent also admits he did. 
Respondent, therefore, wrote controlled substance prescriptions without 
a legitimate medical purpose and outside the usual course of 
professional practice, thus violating federal law. 21 CFR 1306.04(a); 
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. at 269-71.
    Accordingly, the Agency finds that there is substantial record 
evidence of Respondent's violations of applicable law, that the 
Government presented a prima facie case, that Respondent failed to 
rebut the Government's prima facie case, and that Respondent's 
continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest, 
supporting the revocation of his registration. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4).

IV. Sanction

    Where, as here, the Government has met its prima facie burden of 
showing that Respondent's continued registration is inconsistent with 
the public interest due to his issuance of controlled substance 
prescriptions without a legitimate medical purpose and outside the 
usual course of professional practice, the burden shifts to Respondent 
to show why he can be entrusted with a registration. Garrett Howard 
Smith, M.D., 83 FR 18882 (2018). Moreover, as past performance is the 
best predictor of future performance, the Agency has required that a 
registrant who has committed acts inconsistent with the public interest 
must unequivocally accept responsibility for those acts and demonstrate 
that he will not engage in future misconduct. Id. In addition, a 
registrant's candor during the investigation and hearing has been an 
important factor in determining acceptance of responsibility and the 
appropriate sanction.\12\ Id. In addition, the Agency has found that 
the egregiousness and extent of the misconduct are significant factors 
in determining the appropriate sanction. Id. The Agency has also 
considered the need to deter similar acts by the respondent and by the 
community of registrants. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As already discussed, given the seriousness and extent of 
Respondent's founded violations, as set out in this Decision, the 
Agency need not, and does not, consider the OSC's lack of candor 
allegations. Supra section I, n.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding these matters, Respondent, according to his written 
statement, ``take[s] full responsibility for the wrong . . . [he has] 
done,'' but ``cannot accept responsibility for some of the false 
additional accusations formally written by the DEA in their case 
against . . . [him].'' RFAAX 16, at 1; RFAAX 17, at 2. As already 
discussed, based on the substantial record evidence establishing the 
validity of the accusations Respondent labeled ``false,'' the Agency 
finds neither of Respondent's claims credible or creditable. Supra 
section II.B. Accordingly, the record is clear that Respondent has not 
unequivocally accepted responsibility for the acts inconsistent with 
the public interest that he committed.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Regarding Respondent's PCAP and remedial measures, remedial 
measures are insufficient without an unequivocal acceptance of 
responsibility. Brenton D. Wynn, M.D., 87 FR 24228, 24261 (2022); 
see also Michael T. Harris, M.D., 87 FR 30276, 30278 (2022) 
(collecting Agency decisions).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1103]]

    In sum, the record supports the imposition of a sanction because 
Respondent does not unequivocally accept responsibility for the founded 
violations inconsistent with the public interest that he committed and 
because Respondent, therefore, has not convinced the Agency that he can 
be entrusted with a registration.
    The interests of specific and general deterrence weigh in favor of 
revocation. See, e.g., Garrett Howard Smith, M.D., 83 FR at 18910 
(collecting cases) (``The egregiousness and extent of the misconduct 
are significant factors in determining the appropriate sanction.''). 
Given the seriousness and extent of Respondent's founded violations, a 
sanction less than revocation would send a message to the existing and 
prospective registrant community that compliance with the law is not a 
condition precedent to maintaining a registration.
    Accordingly, the Agency shall order the sanction the Government 
requested, as contained in the Order below.

Order

    Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 
U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate 
of Registration No. FM2871564 issued to Sohail Mamdani, M.D. Further, 
pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 
823(f), I hereby deny any pending application of Sohail Mamdani, M.D., 
to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending 
application of Sohail Mamdani, M.D., for registration in California. 
This Order is effective February 6, 2023.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
December 27, 2022, by Administrator Anne Milgram. 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. 2023-00006 Filed 1-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P