Lampert

MEMORANDUM ***

Ernest Paul Lampert (“Lampert”) appeals his conviction by guilty plea to one count of securities fraud, arising out of his involvement in a scheme to manipulate the stock price of a company named New Energy which traded on the NASDAQ. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 over the criminal activity in this case, even though some of the events underlying the scheme took place in Mexico. Section 3231 provides that “district courts ... shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the court of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.” Lampert pleaded guilty to violating the laws of the United States, in particular 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78ff and 17 C.F.R. § 240 .10b-5. Lampert pleaded unconditionally, and admitted the allegation in the indictment that the scheme occurred “within the Central District of California and elsewhere.” Accordingly, his guilty plea “establishe[d] the factual basis for [subject matter] jurisdiction.” See United States v. Mathews, 833 F.2d 161, 164 (9th Cir.1987).

Jurisdiction is also proper because it is undisputed…