SEC V. ANTHONY BRANDEL, No. 18-16685 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-16685 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02280-GMNPAL MEMORANDUM* ANTHONY B. BRANDEL, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 4, 2020** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Anthony B. Brandel appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motions for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 in this civil enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. * 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). We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Brandel’s motions for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) because Brandel failed to establish any basis for relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)). To the extent that Brandel attempts to challenge the district court’s underlying summary judgment, we lack jurisdiction because Brandel did not timely file a notice of appeal as to the underlying judgment, or post-judgment motion that tolled the time to file a notice of appeal as to the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); 4(a)(4)(A)(vi); Harman v. Harper, 7 F.3d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1993) (appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) relief does not bring the entire underlying judgment up for review). We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). Brandel’s motion for leave to add supplemental evidence is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 18-16685

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.