Case Name: COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, PlaintiffAppellee, v. Charles I. FREMER, Jayson S. Kline, et al., Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-09
Citations: 128 F. App'x 104
Docket Number: No. 04-13828; D.C. Docket No. 04-80132 CV-WPD
Parties: COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles I. FREMER, Jayson S. Kline, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 128
Pages: 104–104

Head Matter:
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles I. FREMER, Jayson S. Kline, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 04-13828.
D.C. Docket No. 04-80132 CV-WPD.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 9, 2005.
Philip G. Kircher, Aaron Krauss, Cozen O’Conner Law Firm, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants-Appellants.
William S. Liebman, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before ANDERSON, HULL and GIBSON, Circuit Judges.
Honorable John R. Gibson, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation,

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We decline to address the applicability of Regulation § 32.9, because that issue was not raised in the district court. Appellants may request that the district court address the issue on remand.
With respect to the merits, we have carefully considered the several arguments of appellants, both in brief and at oral argument. However, we readily conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.