U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Brookstreet Securities Corp.

MEMORANDUM

Stanley C. Brooks challenges the district court’s judgment, imposing a $5.88 million civil penalty against him pursuant to § 21(d)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act (“the Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78 (d)(3)(A). As the parties are well aware of the facts, we do not reiterate them here.

I

Brooks contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider a list of factors allegedly relevant to determining the appropriate magnitude of civil penalties. However, the district court’s analysis already incorporates most of the factors listed by Brooks. Furthermore, its decision not to consider factors such as proportionality to illicit gain, proportionality to penalties imposed on other violators, and Brooks’ ability to pay does not render its calculation “beyond the pale of reasonable justification under the circumstances.” Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir. 2000).

■ Brooks also asserts that the district court abused its discretion by drawing improper factual inferences against him on issues such as what he did wrong, whether his infractions were recurrent, and whether he accepted responsibility. However, these factual matters were decided during…