Court Opinion

ID: 9839831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 15:00:39.849332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:34.880491
License: Public Domain

23-575-cv
     Securities and Exchange Commission v. Su, Yin

                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                         SUMMARY ORDER

     Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary
     order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by federal rule of
     appellate procedure 32.1 and this court’s local rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary
     order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the federal appendix
     or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a
     summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

 1                  At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
 2   Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the
 3   City of New York, on the 14th day of September, two thousand twenty-three.
 4
 5   PRESENT:
 6               JON O. NEWMAN,
 7               JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
 8               MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN,
 9                     Circuit Judges.
10   _____________________________________
11
12   SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
13
14                    Plaintiff-Appellee,
15
16                    v.                                                23-575
17
18   LIZHAO SU, ZHIQING YIN
19
20                    Relief Defendants-Appellants,
21

                                                      1
 1   JUN QIN, YAN ZHOU, BEI XIE, CHAOFENG JI,
 2
 3                Relief Defendants,
 4
 5   SHAOHUA MICHAEL YIN, BENJAMIN BIN CHOW
 6
 7               Defendants.
 8   ______________________________________
 9
10
11   FOR RELIEF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS:                             FRED A. ROWLEY, JR.
12                                                                 (Matthew K. Donohue and
13                                                                 Michael S. Sommer, on the
14                                                                 brief), Wilson   Sonsini
15                                                                 Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.,
16                                                                 Los Angeles, CA, & New
17                                                                 York, NY.
18
19   FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE:                                       PAUL G. ÁLVAREZ, Senior
20                                                                 Appellate Counsel (Megan
21                                                                 Barbero, General Counsel,
22                                                                 and John W. Avery,
23                                                                 Deputy Solicitor, on the
24                                                                 brief),  Securities  and
25                                                                 Exchange     Commission,
26                                                                 Washington, DC.
27
28
29         Appeal from a denial of a motion to modify an injunction by the United States

30   District Court for the Southern District of New York (J. Paul Oetken, Judge).

31         UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

32   AND DECREED that the district court’s denial of the motion to modify is AFFIRMED.

                                                 2
1          After oral argument and careful consideration, we AFFIRM the well-reasoned

2   order of the district court.

3                                        FOR THE COURT:
4                                        Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

                                            3