Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jamie L. Solow , 396 F. App'x 635 ( 2010 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-10360 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar SEPTEMBER 20, 2010
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 9:06-cv-81041-DMM
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMIE L. SOLOW,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 20, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In S.E.C. v. Solow, 308 Fed. Appx. 364, 2009 WL 139503 (C.A. 11 (Fla)),
we affirmed the district court’s judgment ordering Jamie L. Solow to pay the
S.E.C. $3,424,788 in disgorgement. Solow paid only $2,639 of that amount, and
the S.E.C. moved the district court for an order to show cause why he should not
be held in civil contempt. After Solow filed a response to the S.E.C.’s motion, the
district court held an evidentiary hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
court found that Solow had not shown a valid excuse for his non-compliance with
the disgorgement order and, in fact, had conducted his affairs to avoid compliance.
The court therefore held him in civil contempt and ordered him incarcerated until
he purges himself of the contempt by paying the amount owed or by satisfactorily
demonstrating good faith reasonable efforts to pay it. Solow now appeals the
court’s contempt order.
At the show cause hearing, the S.E.C. established a prima facie case of civil
contempt, i.e., that Solow actively took steps to create his asserted inability to pay.
Solow, in response, testified that, among other things, his only asset is his interest
in homestead property held with his wife as tenants by the entirety, and he lacked
the ability to coerce the sale of the property. The court found Solow’s testimony
not credible and that rather than making in good faith all reasonable efforts to
comply with the disgorgement order, Solow had been frustrating compliance. The
district court’s credibility finding is well supported in the record. So also are the
2
court’s other findings of relevant fact. We conclude that, on this record, the court
acted well within its discretion in adjudging Solow in civil contempt and ordering
his incarceration until he purges his contempt in accordance with the court’s
directive.
AFFIRMED.
3