Yuen

MEMORANDUM *

Henry Yuen appeals from the district court’s holding that he violated § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and §§ 10(b), 13(a), and 13(b)(2)(A) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a), 78j(b), 78m(a), 78m(b)(2)(A). He appeals also the related disgorgement and civil penalty ordered by the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and upheld if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, they are plausible in light of the record as a whole. SEC v. Rubera, 350 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2003). A disgorgement order is reviewed for abuse of discretion, SEC v. First Pac. Bancorp, 142 F.3d 1186 , 1190 (9th Cir.1998), as is the imposition of a civil penalty and its amount, SEC v. Sargent, 329 F.3d 34, 38 (1st Cir.2003); SEC v. Presto Telecomms., Inc., 237 Fed.Appx. 198, 200 (9th Cir.2007) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(d)(2)(C), 78u(d)(8)(B)).

As the parties are well aware of the facts, we do not reiterate them here.

First, Yuen contests the district court’s credibility findings and its rejection of his claim to a good faith reliance…