N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DANIEL C . M ASTER S,

Pe t i tione r,
v. U.S. SEC UR ITIES & EXC HANGE C OM M ISSION,

R e sponde nt. No. 22-70131 SEC No. 3-20051
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the Se c uritie s & Exc ha

nge C o m m ission Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

31, 2023 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SELNA, * * Distric t Judge
. Danie l C . M a ste rs se e ks re vie w of a M ay 20, 2022 orde r of the Unite d Stat e s Se c uritie s a

nd Exc ha nge C om m ission (SEC ) de ny ing his motion to vac ate a Se pte m be r 23, 2020 orde r (the “ 2020 C o nse nt Orde r” ) and de ny ing his motion to 

# FIL ED APR 13 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Ja m e s V. Se lna , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.be re insta

te d to a ppe ar or pra c tic e be fore the SEC . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 15 U.S.C . § 78y (a )(1), an d

we de ny his pe tition. B e c a use M a ste rs knowingly

and volunta

rily e nte re d the 2020 C o nse nt Orde r, whic h inc lude d a wa i v e r of a ll post-he aring proc e d ure s, se e 17 C .F.R
. § 201.240(a), (c )(4), the SEC did not e rr in c o nc luding tha t M a ste rs wa i ve d his right to c ha lle nge the orde r. Nor did theSEC a buse its disc re tion in c onc l uding that , be c a use M a ste rs fa ile d to show newly disc ove re d e vide nc e , fra

ud or
m isc o nduc t, a

n inte rve ning c ha

nge in la w, or a ny othe r unfore se e a

ble
c irc um s ta nc e , he fa i le d to de m onstra te tha t the re we re c om

pe lling c irc um sta

nc e s to support va c ating the2020 C onse nt Orde r. Bolan , S.E.C . R e le a se No. 10640, 2019 W L 2324336, a

t *3 (M ay 30, 2019) (c ita

tion omitte d); Fe ldman , S.E.C . R e le a se No. 10078, 2016 W

L 2643450, a

t *2 (M a y 10, 2016). Although it wa s not ne c e ssa ry for the SEC to re a c h M a s te rs’ s furthe r
argum e nts, theSEC did not e rr in c onc luding tha t his a rgum e nts la c ke d m e rit. C ontra ry to M a ste rs’ s a sse rtions, theSEC ha d sta tutory jurisdic tion ove r M a ste rs’ s
m isc o nduc t. Se e 15 U.S.C . §§ 77h-1(a), (f), (g)(1), 78d-3, 78o(b)(6), 78u(a)(1),

278u-2, 78u-3(a), (f); 17 C .F.R . § 201.102(e )(1)(iii). 1 Nor did theSEC e rr in

de te rm i ning tha

t re ga rdle ss whe the r M a s te rs’ s c o nduc t c o m plie d with theFe de ra l R ule s of C ivil Proc e dure or the Fe de ra l R ule s of B ankruptc y

Proc e dure , the SEC ha d full a uthority to institute

proc e e dings a

nd im pose sa nc tions under the
a pplic a ble se c uritie s la

w s. Fina lly , the SEC did not a buse its disc re tion in c onc luding tha t M a ste rs fa ile d to e sta

blish good c a

use to be re insta

t e d to a ppe ar and pra c tic e be fore the SEC due to the se riousne ss of his misc onduc t a nd the a bse n c e of othe r fav ora

ble
c irc um s ta nc e s . 17 C .F.R . § 201.102(e )(5)(i). W e do not ha ve a uthority to a ddre ss M a s te rs’ s re m a ining c onte ntions be c a use he fa ile d to ra ise the m to the SEC
. Se e 15 U.S.C . § 78y (c )(1). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

1 B e c a use a d m inistra t ive a ge nc ie s like the SEC e xe rc ise e x e c utive powe r unde r Artic le I, not judic ia l powe r unde r Artic le III, s e e Am. Ins. C o. v . 356 Bale

s of C otton , 26 U.S. 511, 512 (1828), se e also Se ila L. LLC v . C F PB , 140 S. C t. 2183, 2234 n.7 (2020) (Ka ga n, J., c onc urring in pa

rt), M a ste rs’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the SEC la c ke d Artic le III subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion is ina pplic a ble he re . 3