Colvin

ORDER

This case is hereby resubmitted effective December 10, 2001.

MEMORANDUM **

Job Kjell Hovik appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Because the facts are known to the parties, we will not recite them in detail except as necessary. We affirm the district court’s decision.

Hovik argues that the amount of the district court’s disgorgement is not supported by the record. The uneontradicted declarations of Toshie Honda Connick and Lorraine Pearson support the court’s disgorgement calculation of $397,265.50 before interest. Hovik failed to contest those declarations in any way. He may not do so now for the first time. See, e.g., Palmer v. Internal Revenue Serv., 116 F.3d 1309 , 1312-13 (9th Cir.1997).

Hovik next contends that the asset freeze to which he consented at the time of the permanent injunction is invalid because it extends to assets that have not been proven traceable to the fraudulent investment scheme. Hovik did not raise this argument before the district court and thus it is waived on appeal. See id.

Hovik’s final argument is that he was deprived of his due process rights by having been improperly…