Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0517-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David GIVENS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America; U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Respondents.
    No. 16-72207
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    Filed October 4, 2017
    David Givens, Pro Se
    Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent United States of America
    Jacob Loshin, Attorney, Stephen G. Yo-der, Securities & Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, for Respondent U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Givens petitions pro se for review of an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) denying his claim for a whistleblower award under Section 21F of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, We have jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(f). The SEC’s determination may be set aside only if “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” or “unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (2)(E); see also 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(f); Ponce v. SEC, 345 F.3d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition.

The record supports the SEC’s determination that Givens was not entitled to a whistleblower award because Givens did not provide information to the SEC “that led to the successful enforcement” of an SEC action. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(b); see also 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-4(c) (defining information that leads to successful enforcement).

We reject as meritless Givens’s contention that the SEC denied him due process of law.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.