SEC v. Anthony Brandel

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 7, 2020
• Docket: 18-16685
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE No. 18-16685 COMMISSION, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02280-GMN- Plaintiff-Appellee, PAL

v. 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