Court Opinion

ID: 2965419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:39:57.878604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:06.917307
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 97-2275

               SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

                       Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                v.

                     ELLIS L. DEYON, ET AL.,

                      Defendants, Appellees.
                           __________
                                
                      BRADLEY T. GULLETT,
                                
                     Defendant, Appellant.
                      ____________________
                                
No. 97-2276

              SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
                                
                      Plaintiff, Appellee,
                                
                               v.
                                
                    ELLIS L. DEYON, ET AL.,
                                
                     Defendants, Appellees.
                                
                           __________
                                
                       SHERWOOD H. CRAIG,
                                
                     Defendant, Appellant.
                     ______________________No. 97-2277

              SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
                                
                      Plaintiff, Appellee,
                                
                               v.
                                
                    ELLIS L. DEYON, ET AL.,
                                
                     Defendants, Appellees.
                           __________
                                
                         WILLIAM HANKE,
                                
                     Defendant, Appellant.
                                

         APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                
                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
                                
          [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                

                             Before
                                
                     Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                 Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                

     Bradley T. Gullett on brief pro se.
     Sherwood H. Craig on brief pro se.
     Richard H. Walker, General Counsel, Jacob H. Stillman,
Associate General Counsel, Katharine B. Gresham, Assistant General
Counsel, and Diane v. White, Senior Counsel, on brief for the
Securities and Exchange Commission, appellee.

July 1, 1998

            Per Curiam.  Having carefully reviewed the record in
    this case, including the briefs of the parties, we affirm the
    judgment of the district court, essentially for the reasons
    given by the district court in its findings of fact and
    conclusions of law, dated August 21, 1997.  We limit ourselves 
    to the following remarks. 
              Like the district court, we find that the investment
    of pooled funds in a common account from which investors were
    to be paid interest on a pro rata basis constitutes a "common
    enterprise" for the purpose of investment contract analysis. 
    The claim that the fixed interest payments promised investors
    does not constitute "profit" was not raised with sufficient
    clarity below and hence has been waived on appeal absent
    exceptional circumstances.  See In re Rauh, 119 F.3d 46, 51
    (1st. Cir. 1997).  No such circumstances exist in this case.
              We further find no clear error in the district court
    determination that defendants/appellants acted with the
    required scienter in offering these securities.  Finally, the
    district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the
    penalties it assessed or in denying the belated request for a
    jury trial made by defendants/appellants.
              Affirmed.