Case Name: SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stewart A. MERKIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-13
Citations: 628 F. App'x 741
Docket Number: No. 13-13929
Parties: SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stewart A. MERKIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before PRYOR, Circuit Judge, and WOOD, Chief District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 628
Pages: 741–741

Head Matter:
SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stewart A. MERKIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-13929.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Jan. 13, 2016.
Daniel Staroselsky, U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Kathleen Mary Salyer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Stephan Jacob Schlegelmilch, Christian Schultz, H. Michael Semler, U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Paul Kunz, Bander Law Firm, PLLC, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before PRYOR, Circuit Judge, and WOOD, Chief District Judge.
Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood, Chief United States District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
Honorable B. Avant Edenfield, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sat by designation as a member of the panel at oral argument, but is now deceased. We therefore decide this case as a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Stewart A. Merkin ("Merkin") appeals the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Securities and Exchange Commission on its claims of securities fraud in violation of federal securities law. On appeal, Merkin argues that the district court erred by ignoring key exculpatory evidence and overlooking genuine factual disputes with regard to each of the elements of securities fraud. After careful consideration of the record and the parties' briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we agree with the decision of the district court and thus AFFIRM.