United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 19-1266 September Term, 2020

SEC-Rel34-87662

SEC-Rel34-87663

Filed On: March 5, 2021

Meghan Belaski and Scott Nutt,

Appellants

v.

Securities and Exchange Commission,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

BEFORE: Tatel, Millett, and Rao, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the Securities and Exchange

Commission (“SEC”) and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing; the motions for

judicial notice; the motions to supplement the record, the opposition to one of those

motions, and the reply; the motion to correct the record; and the motion styled as a

“motion to request an amendment to this case,” it is

ORDERED that appellants’ May 22, 2020 motion to supplement the record be

granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted with respect to what

appellants designate as documents C-1 and C-2. The motion is otherwise denied

because the proffered material is not relevant to the disposition of this appeal. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that appellants’ remaining motions to supplement the

record and motions for judicial notice be denied because the proffered material is not

relevant to the disposition of this appeal. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that appellants’ motion to correct the record be denied. It

is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the December 5, 2019 orders of

the SEC denying appellants’ applications for whistleblower awards be affirmed. 

Appellants argue that they are entitled to a related-action award based on information

they provided to the SEC. However, the SEC correctly determined that, because
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 19-1266 September Term, 2020

appellants were not entitled to a covered-action award, they were not even eligible for a

related-action award. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(a)(5); 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-11(a); see

also Claim for Award in Connection with Redacted Notice of Covered Action Redacted,

Exchange Act Release No. 84,506, 2018 WL 5619386, at *3 n.5 (Oct. 30, 2018).

Appellants additionally argue that certain irregularities in the underlying

whistleblower proceeding demonstrate that the proceeding was legally deficient. But

because appellants were not eligible for a related-action award, any such errors could

not have affected the outcome of the proceeding and were therefore harmless. See

PDK Labs. Inc. v. U.S. DEA, 362 F.3d 786, 799 (D.C. Cir. 2004); see also Nat’l Ass’n of

Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 659–60 (2007). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that appellants’ motion to request an amendment to this

case be dismissed as moot.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the

resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See

Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy

Deputy Clerk

Page 2