SEC v. Charles Johnson, Jr., et al, No. 09-5399 (D.C. Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 28, 2011.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals F OR T HE D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA C IRCUIT ____________ No. 09-5399 September Term 2011 1:05-cv-00036-GK Filed On: September 22, 2011 Securities and Exchange Commission, Appellee v. Charles Johnson, Jr., Appellee Chris Benyo, Appellant Michael Kennedy, et al., Appellees BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Ginsburg and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing filed by appellee on August 12, 2011, and the response thereto, it is ORDERED that the petition be denied. It is FURTHER ORDERED, on the court s own motion, that the opinion issued June 28, 2011, be amended as follows: Slip Op. p. 11, first full paragraph, beginning at line 7, delete the following: Although we noted there in a dictum that none of the parties had been prejudiced by the error, id. at 30, we actually held objections to venue must be timely and sufficient and no party had made and preserved that objection, id. at 31; see Freeman v. Bee Mach. Co., 319 U.S. 448, 453 (1943) (venue must be seasonably asserted ). United States Court of Appeals F OR T HE D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA C IRCUIT ____________ No. 09-5399 September Term 2011 And insert in lieu thereof: We noted there in a dictum that none of the parties had been prejudiced by the error, id. at 30: not the plaintiffs, because they had failed to make and preserve a timely objection to venue, and not the Government, because we ruled in its favor on the merits of its appeal. Here, as we have seen, Benyo preserved his objection to venue at every opportunity and the error in venue would be harmless to him, in the sense in which we used that term in Whittier, only if we were also to rule in his favor on the merits. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk BY: Page 2 /s/ Jennifer M. Clark Deputy Clerk
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.
