Securities and Exchange Commis v. Mark Spangler , 671 F. App'x 985 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE No. 14-36023
COMMISSION,
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00856-RSM
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MARK F. SPANGLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Mark F. Spangler appeals pro se from the district court’s default judgment in
the government’s civil enforcement action alleging violations of the Investment
Advisors Act of 1940 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, NewGen,
LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the government’s
motion for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). See
Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth factors for
determining whether to enter default judgment). The district court did not err in
considering the impact of Spangler’s criminal conviction on its evaluation of the
default judgment factors. See Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 505 F.3d 874, 882 (9th
Cir. 2007) (“[A] final judgment retains its collateral estoppel effect, if any, while
pending appeal.”).
We do not consider arguments that were not presented to the district court.
See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-36023