Facts
- The SEC filed a civil action against Ubong Uboh and Tyler Crockett on April 15, 2021, alleging their involvement in fraudulent schemes violating federal securities laws [lines="13-17"].
- The SEC's complaint highlighted Uboh and Crockett's solicitation of investments from vulnerable individuals while misrepresenting the financial prospects of microcap issuers [lines="42-61"].
- Uboh faced parallel criminal charges arising from the same conduct, including a guilty plea to conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud [lines="93-95"].
- On February 22, 2023, the court entered a Consent Judgment permanently enjoining Uboh from violating securities laws and barring him from penny stock offerings [lines="110-115"].
- Uboh filed a motion to dismiss the SEC's proposed final judgment, claiming it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause [lines="152-154"].
Issues
- Whether Uboh’s consent to the SEC’s judgments waives any claims regarding Double Jeopardy arising from the proposed sanctions [lines="262-264"].
- Whether the proposed sanctions by the SEC, which include disgorgement and civil penalties, constitute a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause given Uboh's previous criminal conviction [lines="262-268"].
Holdings
- The court found that Uboh waived his Double Jeopardy claims when he consented to the SEC's judgment, thereby negating the basis for his motion [lines="264-266"].
- The court held that additional civil sanctions such as disgorgement and injunctions do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, as these are not deemed as criminal punishments [lines="364-366"].
OPINION
Case Information
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Devin Lampkin, Case No.: 2:23-cv-001997-JAD-EJY Petitioner,
Order Confirming Counsel for Petitioner v. and Setting Briefing Schedule High Desert State Prison, et al., [ECF No. 11]
Respondents.
Now that Assistant Federal Public Defender C.B. Kirschner, Esq. has made an appearance on behalf of Petitioner Devin Lampkin, [1] IT IS ORDERED that: The Federal Public Defender, through C.B. Kirschner, Esq., is appointed as counsel
for Petitioner Devin Lampkin [2] in all federal proceedings related to this matter, including any appeals or certiorari proceedings, unless allowed to withdraw. Petitioner has from entry of this order to file an amended petition or seek other appropriate relief. This deadline and any extension thereof may not be construed as implied findings regarding the federal limitation period or a basis for tolling. Petitioner at all times remains responsible for calculating the running of the federal limitation period and timely asserting claims, without regard to any court- ordered deadlines or extensions. Thus, a petition or amended petition filed within a court-ordered deadline may still be dismissed as untimely if it violates the statute of limitations. [3]
The respondents must file a response to the amended petition, including potentially by motion to dismiss, within 60 days of service of an amended petition. Petitioner may file a reply within of service of the answer. However, Local Rule LR 7- 2(b) governs the response and reply time to any motion filed by either party, including motions filed in lieu of a pleading. Any procedural defenses the respondents raise to the counseled amended petition
must be raised together in a single, consolidated motion to dismiss. Successive motions to dismiss will not be entertained, and any procedural defenses omitted from the consolidated motion to dismiss will be waived. The respondents may not file a response that consolidates their procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits. But arguments that an unexhausted claim clearly lacks merit may be included a procedural-defense response. If the respondents seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) they must: (1) do so in a single motion to dismiss, not in the answer; and (2) specifically direct their argument to the standard for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) as set forth in Cassett v. Stewart. In short, no procedural defenses, including exhaustion, may be included with the merits in an answer. All procedural defenses, including exhaustion, must be raised in a single motion to dismiss. In any answer filed on the merits, the respondents must specifically cite to and
address the applicable state court written decision and state court record materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim.
The respondents must file the state court exhibits relevant to their response in chronological order. All state court records, and related exhibits must be filed in accordance with LR IA
10-3 and LR IC 2-2 and include a separate index identifying each exhibit by number or letter. The index must be filed in CM/ECF’s document upload screen as the base document to receive the base docket number ( e.g. , ECF No. 10). Each exhibit must then be filed as “attachments” to the base document to receive a sequenced sub- docket number ( e.g. , Exhibit A (ECF No. 10-1), Exhibit B (ECF No. 10-2), Exhibit C (ECF No. 10-3), and so forth). If the exhibits will span more than one filing, the base document in each successive filing must be either a copy of the index or volume cover page. Notwithstanding LR IC 2-2(g), paper copies of any electronically filed exhibits need
not be provided to chambers or to the staff attorney, unless later directed by the court. U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey Dated: May 9, 2024
[1] ECF No. 11.
[2] 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).
[3] See Sossa v. Diaz , 729 F.3d 1225, 1235 (9th Cir. 2013).
[4] Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623–24 (9th Cir. 2005).
[5] See LR IC 2-2(a)(3)(A).