Case Name: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Appellee, v. John W. LAWTON, Appellant, Paramount Partners, LP; Crossroad Capital Management, LLC, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-06
Citations: 449 F. App'x 555
Docket Number: No. 11-1998
Parties: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Appellee, v. John W. LAWTON, Appellant, Paramount Partners, LP; Crossroad Capital Management, LLC, Defendants.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 449
Pages: 555–556

Head Matter:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Appellee, v. John W. LAWTON, Appellant, Paramount Partners, LP; Crossroad Capital Management, LLC, Defendants.
No. 11-1998.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 3, 2012.
Filed: Jan. 6, 2012.
John E. Birkenheier, James A. Davidson, Adolph J. Dean, Jr., Marlene B. Key, Securities & Exchange Commission, Midwest Regional Office, Chicago, IL, Nicholas Bronni, General, Tracey A. Hardin, U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, Lonnie Frank Bryan, As sistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.
John W. Lawton, Duluth, MN, pro se.
Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this civil fraud action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission against John Lawton, a hedge fund he managed, and his investment firm, Lawton consented to an order permanently enjoining and restraining defendants from committing securities violations, and obligating them to disgorge ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest and to pay a civil penalty. Lawton now appeals the district court's order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to vacate the order entered upon his consent, and he challenges the court's disgorgement calculations. Following careful review, we find no abuse of discretion. See White v. National Football League, 585 F.3d 1129, 1136 (8th Cir.2009) (reviewing for abuse of discretion denial of Rule 60(b) motion to amend consent judgment); SEC v. Absolu-teFuture.com, 393 F.3d 94, 96 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (review of imposition and calculation of disgorgement is for abuse of discretion); SEC v. First City Financial Corp., 890 F.2d 1215, 1232 (D.C.Cir.1989) (defendant has burden of rebutting SEC's disgorgement calculation; risk of uncertainty in measuring unjust enrichment should fall on wrongdoer whose illegal conduct created that uncertainty).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.