U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Bellwether Venture Capital Fund I, Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Suspended California attorney Omar A. Rizvi appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in the Securities & Exchange Commission’s (“SÉC”) civil enforcement action alleging that Rizvi violated various federal securities laws. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, SEC v. Platforms Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072 , 1085 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment against Rizvi on the SEC’s claims under §§ 5(a), (c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) because Riz-vi failed to rebut the SEC’s evidence that Rizvi sold or offered for sale securities without prior registration with the SEC, and no exemption from registration applied. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), (c) (prohibiting the offer or sale of an unregistered security in interstate commerce); SEC v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1255 (9th Cir.2013) (elements of a prima facie case for a violation of § 5); SEC v. Murphy, 626 F.2d 633, 645-46 (9th Cir. 1980) (concluding that offerings of limited partnership sales should be integrated for the purposes of determining whether the offering was exempt from registration).