FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 14, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16573 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -029 17 -C V -T W T -1 S E C U R I T I E S A N D E X C H A N G E C O M M I S S I O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s I N V E S T M E N T T E C H N O L O G Y , I N C ., T H O M A S D . V I D M A R , R O S E N F E L D , G O L D M A N & W A R E , I N C ., U L Y S S E S T H O M A S W A R E , S M A L L C A P R E S E A R C H G R O U P , I N C ., C E N T E N N I A L A D V I S O R S , L .L .C ., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 14, 2006)Ware a nd RGW also argue that, bec ause N orris wa s not admitted pro hac vic e bef ore 1 appea ringin the district court, in violation of the Northern District of Ge org ia’s Local Rule 83.1, he is guilty

of criminal contempt. They argue that the district cour t abused its discretion by neither taking a

ny disciplinary

action ag ainst Norris nor referringthe matter to the statebar f or disciplinary

action. As this argument was raised for thefirst time on appeal, we will not consider it. Na

rey v. Dea n, 32 F.3d 1521, 1526- 27 (11th Cir. 1994).

2 B efo re C A RN E S , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: U l ys se s “ T ho m as ” W ar e and R osenfe l d, G ol dm an and W ar e, Inc. (“ R G W ”) appe a l the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of the i rm ot i on t o qua s h the S e c ur i t i e s a nd E xc ha nge C om m i s s i on’ s ( “ S E C ” ) s ubpoe nat o C i t i z e ns T rus tB a nk s e e ki ng r e c or ds pe r t a i ni ng t o the i ra c c ount s . T he S E C a r gue s tha tthi s appe a l i s m ootbe c aus e the ba nk ha s pr oduc e d the doc um e nt s r e que s t e d i n the s ubpoe naa nd, ba s e d on the fa ct s of thi s c as e, m eani ng ful re l i ef cann otbe grant ed. W ar e and R G W ar gu e that the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng the i rm ot i on t o qua s h ba s e d on l a c k of s t a ndi ng, c ont e ndi ng tha tthe i rm ot i on s houl d ha ve be e n gr a nt e d. 1 W e r e vi e w the que s t i on of m ootne s s de novo. C A M P L e ga l D e f . F und v. C i ty of A t l ant a, 45 1 F . 3d 12 57 , 12 68 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). T he bank ’ s c om pl i ance w ith th e s u b p o e n ad o e s n o t m a k e th is c a s e m o o t; s h o u ld W a r e p r e v a il o n th e m e r its of hi s m ot i on t o qua s h, w e ha ve the pow e rt o pr ovi de apa r t i a l r e m e dy by or de r i ng th e S E C to d e s tr o y o rr e tu rn a ll c o p ie s o f th e d o c u m e n ts p r o du c e d b y th e b a n k . C hur c h of

S c i e nt ol ogy v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 506 U . S . 9, 13, 113 S . C t . 447, 450, 1213

L .E d .2 d 3 1 3 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . W a r e a n d R G W a r g u e th a t th e y b o th h a d ap e r s o n a l r ig h t o rp r iv ile g e in th e ir o w n b an kreco rd s an d a “ p erso n al i n t erest ” i n th o se reco rd s an d cl i en tco n fi d en ces, a nd, the r e f

or e , ha d s t a ndi ng t o c ha l l e nge the s ubpoe naby the S E C . W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s rul i ng on am ot i on t o qua s h f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. S e e M oor e v. A rm ou r P harm . C o. , 92 7 F . 2d 11 94 , 11 97 (11th C i r. 19 91 ). “ A di stri ctcourt ab u s e s its d is c r e tio n w h e n it m is ap p lie s th e la w in r e a c h in g its d e c is io n o rb a s e s its de c i s i on on f

i ndi ngs of

f a c ttha ta r e c l e a r l y e rr one ous . ” A r c e v. G a r c i a , 434 F . 3d 1 2 5 4 , 1 2 6 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . W e r e v ie w s ta n d in g d e te rm in a tio n s d e n o v o . C A M P L e ga l D e f

. F und, 451 F . 3d a t1268. H ow ever , w e genera l l y do n otconsi der an i ss ue or theory thatw as no tra i se d b ef ore the di stri ctcourt . N ar ey , 32 F . 3d at 1 5 2 6 - 2 7 . P r i ort o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of the i rm ot i on t o qua s h the s ubpoe na , the on l y argum entthatW ar e and R G W m ade i n res po nse t o the S E C ’ s a ss ert i on that the y l a c ke d s t a ndi ng w a s tha tF e d. R C i v. P . 45 di d noti m pos e al i m i t a t i on on w ho c oul d f i l e am ot i on t o qua s h as ubpoe na . W a r e a nd R G W di d nota s s e r ts t a ndi ng on the the ory of

a“ pe r s ona l i nt e r e s t ” unt i l the y m ove d f orr e c ons i de r a t i on of

the de ni a l of the i rm ot i on t o qua s h. H ow e ve r , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s ubs e que ntde ni a l of r e c ons i de r a t i on i s notbe f or e us . F e d. R . A pp. P . 4( a ) ( 4) ( B ) ( i i ) ; G r e e n v. U ni on4

F o u n d ry C o ., 2 8 1 F .3 d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 3 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . C o n s id e r a tio n o f th is ar gu m enton appeal w ou l d eff ec t i vel y r equi re us t o revi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s order base d o n a theory thatW ar e and R G W di d n otpres entt o the di stri ctcourtatthat tim e . W e d e c lin e to d o s o . N a r e y , 3 2 F .3 d a t 1 5 2 6 - 2 7 . In l i gh tof the foregoi ng , w e a ff i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s orderdenyi ng W ar e a n d R G W ’s m o tio n to q u a s h th e S E C ’s s u b p o e n a . AF F I RME D.