ALBERT BARNES, SR. V. USSEC, No. 17-70193 (9th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 5 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALBERT L. BARNES, Sr., U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-70193 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Securities & Exchange Commission Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Albert L. Barnes, Sr. petitions pro se for review of an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) denying a whistleblower award. We have jurisdiction under to 15 U.S.C. § 76u-6(f). We deny the petition. The Commission properly denied Barnes a whistleblower award because * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Barnes did not “provide[] original information to the Commission that led to the successful enforcement” of the subject covered action. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(b)(1) (the Commission shall pay an award to a whistleblower who provides original information to the Commission that leads to the successful enforcement of a covered action); id. at § 78u-6(a)(1), (6) (defining covered action and whistleblower); id. § 76u-6(f) (setting forth standard of review). We lack jurisdiction to consider Barnes’ contentions regarding the Commission’s pending determinations of whistleblower awards for other covered actions. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending motions and requests are denied. DENIED. 2 17-70193

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.