SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMIS V. MARK SPANGLER, No. 14-36023 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-36023 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00856-RSM Plaintiff-Appellee, MEMORANDUM* v. 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

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.