Source: https://www.leagle.com/decision/inadvfco170320000249
Timestamp: 2017-08-20 09:50:42
Document Index: 424144536

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 556', '§ 200', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 200', '§ 201', '§ 200', '§ 556', '§ 556', '§ 201', '§ 556', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 556', '§ 200', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 556', '§ 200', '§ 200', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 556', '§ 200', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 556', '§ 200', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 556', '§ 200', '§ 201', '§ 200', '§ 201', '§ 556', '§ 2']

BANDIMERE v. S.E.C. | 844 F.3d 1168 (2016) | By... | Leagle.com
David F. BANDIMERE, Petitioner, v. United States SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent. Ironridge Global IV, Ltd; Ironridge Global Partners, LLC, Amici Curiae.
• a district court clerk, In re Hennen, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 230, 258, 10 L.Ed. 138 (1839); • an "assistant-surgeon," United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 762, 24 L.Ed. 588 (1877); • "thousands of clerks in the Departments of the Treasury, Interior, and the othe[r]" departments, Germaine, 99 U.S. at 511 (1878); • an election supervisor, Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 397-98, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879); • a federal marshal, id. at 397; • a "cadet engineer" appointed by the Secretary of the Navy, United States v. Perkins, 116 U.S. 483, 484-85, 6 S.Ct. 449, 29 L.Ed. 700 (1886); • a "commissioner of the circuit court," United States v. Allred, 155 U.S. 591, 594-96, 15 S.Ct. 231, 39 L.Ed. 273 (1895); • a vice consul temporarily exercising the duties of a consul, United States v. Eaton, 169 U.S. 331, 343, 18 S.Ct. 374, 42 L.Ed. 767 (1898); • extradition commissioners, Rice v. Ames, 180 U.S. 371, 378, 21 S.Ct. 406, 45 L.Ed. 577 (1901); • a United States commissioner in district court proceedings, Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 352-54, 51 S.Ct. 153, 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931); • a postmaster first class, Buckley, 424 U.S. at 126, 96 S.Ct. 612 (1976) (citing Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 47 S.Ct. 21, 71 L.Ed. 160 (1926)); • Federal Election Commission ("FEC") commissioners, id.; • an independent counsel, Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 671, 108 S.Ct. 2597, 101 L.Ed.2d 569 (1988); • Tax Court special trial judges, Freytag, 501 U.S. at 881-82, 111 S.Ct. 2631 (1991); and • military judges, Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163, 170, 114 S.Ct. 752, 127 L.Ed.2d 1 (1994); Edmond, 520 U.S. at 666, 117 S.Ct. 1573 (1997).8
Administer oaths and affirmations                          5 U.S.C. § 556(c)(1)
17 C.F.R. § 200.14(a)(1)
17 C.F.R. § 201.111(a)
Consolidate "proceedings involving a common                17 C.F.R. § 201.201(a)
"Determin[e]" the "scope and form of evidence,             17 C.F.R. § 201.326
Enter default judgment                                     17 C.F.R. § 201.155
Examine witnesses                                          17 C.F.R. § 200.14(a)(4)
Grant extensions of time or stays                          17 C.F.R. § 201.161
Hold prehearing conferences                                17 C.F.R. § 200.14(a)(6)
Hold settlement conferences and require attendance of      5 U.S.C. § 556(c)(6)
the parties                                                5 U.S.C. § 556(c)(8)
17 C.F.R. § 201.111(e)
Inform the parties about alternative means of dispute      5 U.S.C. § 556(c)(7)
resolution                                                 17 C.F.R. § 201.111(k)
Issue protective orders                                    17 C.F.R. § 201.322
Issue, revoke, quash, or modify subpoenas                  5 U.S.C. § 556(c)(2)
17 C.F.R. § 200.14(a)(2)
17 C.F.R. § 201.111(b)
17 C.F.R. § 201.232(e)
Order and regulate depositions                             17 C.F.R. § 201.233
Order and regulate document production                     17 C.F.R. § 201.230
Prepare an initial decision containing factual findings    5 U.S.C. § 556(c)(10)
and legal conclusions, along with an appropriate order     17 C.F.R. § 200.14(a)(8)
17 C.F.R. § 200.30-9(a)
17 C.F.R. § 201.111(i)
17 C.F.R. § 201.360
Punish contemptuous conduct by excluding a person          17 C.F.R. § 201.180(a)
Regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of      5 U.S.C. § 556(c)(5)
the parties and counsel                                    17 C.F.R. § 200.14(a)(5)
17 C.F.R. § 201.111(d)
Reject deficient filings, order a party to cure            17 C.F.R. § 201.180(b). (c)
Reopen any hearing prior to filing an initial decision     17 C.F.R. § 201.111(j)
Rule on all motions, including dispositive and             5 U.S.C. § 556(c)(9)
procedural motions                                         17 C.F.R. § 200.14(a)(7)
17 C.F.R. § 201.111(h)
17 C.F.R. § 201.220
17 C.F.R. § 201.250
Rule on offers of proof and receive relevant evidence      5 U.S.C. § 556(c)(3)
17 C.F.R. § 200.14(a)(3)
17 C.F.R. § 201.111(c)
Set aside, make permanent, limit, or suspend               17 C.F.R. § 200.30-9(b)
temporary sanctions the SEC issues                         17 C.F.R. § 201.531
Take depositions or have depositions taken                 5 U.S.C. § 556(c)(4)
1. Office of Pers. Mgmt., Historical Federal Workforce Tables, https://perma.cc/LZ7P-EPAG. The first census in 1790 counted 3.9 million inhabitants in the United States. U.S. Census Bureau, 1790 Overview, https://perma.cc/EYF2-4K2L. The Perma.cc links throughout this opinion archive the referenced webpages.
10. In Samuels, the Second Circuit concluded STJs are inferior officers. 930 F.2d at 985. It stated: Although the ultimate decisional authority in cases under section 7443A(b)(4) rests with the Tax Court judges, the special trial judges do exercise a great deal of authority in such cases. The special trial judges are more than mere aids to the judges of the Tax Court. They take testimony, conduct trials, rule on the admissibility of evidence, and have the power to enforce compliance with discovery orders. Contrary to the contentions of the Commissioner, the degree of authority exercised by special trial judges is "significant." They exercise a great deal of discretion and perform important functions, characteristics that we find to be inconsistent with the classifications of "lesser functionary" or mere employee.
32. Judge Randolph rebutted the Landry majority by arguing the following: The [Freytag] Court introduced its alternative holding thus: "Even if the duties of special trial judges [just described] were not as significant as we and the two courts have found them to be, our conclusion would be unchanged." 501 U.S. at 882, 111 S.Ct. 2631 (italics added). What "conclusion" did the Court have in mind? The conclusion it had reached in the preceding paragraphs — namely, that although special trial judges may not render final decisions, they are nevertheless inferior officers of the United States within the meaning of Article II, § 2, cl. 2. The same conclusion, the same holding, had also been rendered in [Samuels], a decision the Supreme Court cited and expressly approved. See 501 U.S. at 881, 111 S.Ct. 2631. There the Second Circuit held that a special trial judge performing the same advisory function as the judge in Freytag was an inferior officer; the court of appeals did not mention the fact that in other types of cases, the judge could issue final judgments.
38. In Bowsher, the Court stated: No one can doubt that Congress and the President are confronted with fiscal and economic problems of unprecedented magnitude, but "the fact that a given law or procedure is efficient, convenient, and useful in facilitating functions of government, standing alone, will not save it if it is contrary to the Constitution. Convenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives — or the hallmarks — of democratic government."