UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 99883 / April 2, 2024

Admin. Proc. File No. 3-21206

In the Matter of 

DANIEL THOMAS BROYLES

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an order instituting proceedings 

(“OIP”) on October 11, 2022, pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 

against Daniel Thomas Broyles, who is currently incarcerated.

1

 On November 6, 2023, the 

Division of Enforcement filed an Affidavit of Service, which establishes that service of the OIP 

was made on Broyles on July 17, 2023, pursuant to Commission Rule of Practice 141(a)(2)(i).2

As stated in the OIP, Broyles’s answer was required to be filed within 20 days of service 

of the OIP.3 As of the date of this order, Broyles has not filed an answer. The prehearing 

conference and the hearing are thus continued indefinitely.

Accordingly, Broyles is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE by May 17, 2024, why he should 

not be deemed to be in default and why this proceeding should not be determined against him

due to his failure to file an answer and to otherwise defend this proceeding. Broyles’s 

submission shall address the reasons for his failure to timely file an answer, and include a 

proposed answer to be accepted in the event that the Commission does not enter a default against 

him. Broyles shall deliver any response, including any answer, to the proper prison authorities 

no later than the due date, for forwarding to the Commission’s Office of the Secretary.4

1 Daniel Thomas Broyles, Exchange Act Release No. 96025, 2022 WL 7145333 (Oct. 11,

2022).

2

17 C.F.R. § 201.141(a)(2)(i).

3 Broyles, 2022 WL 7145333, at *2; Rules of Practice 151(a), 160(b), 220(b), 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 201.151(a), 160(b), .220(b).

4

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (holding that, under federal prison 

mailbox rule, pro se prisoners’ notices of appeal are “filed” at moment of delivery to prison 
2

When a party defaults, the allegations in the OIP will be deemed to be true and the 

Commission may determine the proceeding against that party upon consideration of the record 

without holding a public hearing.5 The OIP informed Broyles that a failure to file an answer 

could result in deeming him in default and determining the proceedings against him.

6

If Broyles files a response to this order to show cause, the Division may file a reply 

within 28 days after its service. If Broyles does not file a response, the Division shall file a 

motion for entry of an order of default and the imposition of remedial sanctions by June 14, 

2024. The motion for sanctions should address each statutory element of the relevant provisions 

of Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act.7 The motion should discuss relevant authority relating to 

the legal basis for, and the appropriateness of, the requested sanctions and include evidentiary 

support sufficient to make an individualized assessment of whether those sanctions are in the 

public interest.8 The parties may file opposition and reply briefs within the deadlines provided 

by the Rules of Practice.9 The failure to timely oppose a dispositive motion is itself a basis for a 

finding of default;10 it may result in the determination of particular claims, or the proceeding as a 

whole, adversely to the non-moving party and may be deemed a forfeiture of arguments that 

could have been raised at that time.11

authorities for forwarding to the district court); Adams v. United States, 173 F.3d 1339, 1341 

(11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (noting that this “mailbox rule [applies] to other filings by pro se

prisoners”).

5 Rules of Practice 155, 180, 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.155, .180.

6 Broyles, 2022 WL 7145333, at *2.

7

See, e.g., Shawn K. Dicken, Exchange Act Release No. 89526, 2020 WL 4678066, at *2 

(Aug. 12, 2020) (requesting additional information from the Division “regarding the factual 

predicate for Dicken’s convictions” and “why these facts establish” the need for remedial 

sanctions); see also Shawn K. Dicken, Exchange Act Release No. 90215, 2020 WL 6117716, at 

*1 (Oct. 16, 2020) (clarifying the additional information needed from the Division).

8

See generally Rapoport v. SEC, 682 F.3d 98, 108 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (requiring 

“meaningful explanation for imposing sanctions”); McCarthy v. SEC, 406 F.3d 179, 190 (2d Cir. 

2005) (stating that “each case must be considered on its own facts”); Gary L. McDuff, Exchange 

Act Release No. 74803, 2015 WL 1873119, at *1, *3 (Apr. 23, 2015); Ross Mandell, Exchange 

Act Release No. 71668, 2014 WL 907416, at *2 (Mar. 7, 2014), vacated in part on other 

grounds, Exchange Act Release No. 77935, 2016 WL 3030883 (May 26, 2016); Don Warner 

Reinhard, Exchange Act Release No. 61506, 2010 WL 421305, at *3-4 (Feb. 4, 2010), appeal 

after remand, Exchange Act Release No. 63720, 2011 WL 121451, at *5-8 (Jan. 14, 2011).

9

See Rules of Practice 154, 160, 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.154, .160.

10 See Rules of Practice 155(a)(2), 180(c), 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.155(a)(2), .180(c); see, e.g., 

Behnam Halali, Exchange Act Release No. 79722, 2017 WL 24498, at *3 n.12 (Jan. 3, 2017).

11 See, e.g., McBarron Capital LLC, Exchange Act Release No. 81789, 2017 WL 4350655, 

at *3-5 (Sep. 29, 2017); Bennett Grp. Fin. Servs., LLC, Exchange Act Release No. 80347, 2017 

WL 1176053, at *2-3 (Mar. 30, 2017), abrogated in part on other grounds by Lucia v. SEC, 138 
3

Upon review of the filings in response to this order, the Commission will either direct 

further proceedings by subsequent order or issue a final opinion and order resolving the matter.

The parties’ attention is directed to the e-filing requirements in the Rules of Practice.

12

 

We also remind the parties that any document filed with the Commission must be served upon all 

participants in the proceeding and be accompanied by a certificate of service.13

For the Commission, by the Office of the General Counsel, pursuant to delegated 

authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary

S. Ct. 2044 (2018); Apollo Publ’n Corp., Securities Act Release No. 8678, 2006 WL 985307, at 

*1 n.6 (Apr. 13, 2006).

12 See Rules of Practice 151, 152(a), 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.151, .152(a) (providing procedure for 

filing papers with the Commission and mandating electronic filing in the form and manner 

posted on the Commission’s website); Instructions for Electronic Filing and Service of 

Documents in SEC Administrative Proceedings and Technical Specifications, 

https://www.sec.gov/efapdocs/instructions.pdf. Parties generally also must certify that they have 

redacted or omitted sensitive personal information from any filing. Rule of Practice 151(e), 

17 C.F.R. § 201.151(e).

13 See Rule of Practice 150, 17 C.F.R. § 201.150 (generally requiring parties to serve each 

other with filings); Rule of Practice 151(d), 17 C.F.R. § 201.151(d) (“Papers filed with the 

Commission . . . shall be accompanied by a certificate stating the name of the person or persons 

served, the date of the service, the method of service, and the mailing address or email address to 

which service was made, if not made in person.”).