Brownson
Brownson v. Securities & Exchange Commission
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
John S. Brownson petitions pro se for review of an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) barring him from association with any broker or dealer following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to commit securities, mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to Section 25 of the Securities Exchange Act *688 of 1934,15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(3), and we deny the petition.
We review the SEC’s findings of fact for substantial evidence, 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(4), and must uphold the SEC’s findings “[i]f the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation[.]” Atlanta-One, Inc. v. Securities and Exch. Comm’n, 100 F.3d 105, 107 (9th Cir.1996). “Sanctions imposed by the SEC are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Id. The SEC abuses its discretion when its sanction is unwarranted in law or unjustified by fact. Hateley v. Securities and Exch. Comm’n, 8 F.3d 653, 655 (9th Cir.1993).
Brownson’s plea agreement and criminal conviction are substantial evidence supporting the SEC’s conclusion that it is in the public interest to permanently bar Brownson from association with a broker or dealer. See Hinkle…