Case Name: David F. BANDIMERE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent. Ironridge Global IV, Ltd; Ironridge Global Partners, LLC, Amici Curiae
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-03
Citations: 855 F.3d 1128
Docket Number: No. 15-9586
Parties: David F. BANDIMERE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent. Ironridge Global IV, Ltd; Ironridge Global Partners, LLC, Amici Curiae.
Judges: Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, KELLY, BRISCOE, LUCERO, HARTZ, HOLMES, MATHESON, BACHARACH, PHILLIPS, MCHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 855
Pages: 1128–1133

Head Matter:
David F. BANDIMERE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent. Ironridge Global IV, Ltd; Ironridge Global Partners, LLC, Amici Curiae.
No. 15-9586
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
FILED May 3, 2017
David A. Zisser, Jones & Keller, Denver, CO, for Petitioner.
Daniel J. Aguilar, Megan Barbero, Mark R. Freeman, Melissa N. Patterson, Mark B. Stern, Tyce R. Walters, U.S. Department of Justice, Michael Andrew Conley, Brent J. Fields, Dominick V. Freda, Esq., Lisa Kinney Helvin, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Paul D. Clement, Jeffrey Matthew Harris, Christopher George Michel, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Ironridge Global IV, Ltd and Ironridge Global Partners, LLC.
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, KELLY, BRISCOE, LUCERO, HARTZ, HOLMES, MATHESON, BACHARACH, PHILLIPS, MCHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Security and Exchange Commission's Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc. We also have a response from the petitioner. Upon consideration, the request for panel rehearing is denied by a majority of the original panel members.
The petition and response were also transmitted to all the judges of the court who are in regular active service. Upon that circulation, a poll was called. A majority voted to deny en banc reconsideration. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(a). Consequently, the en banc request is likewise denied.
Judges Lucero and Moritz voted to grant en banc rehearing. Judge Lucero has written separately in dissent, in which Judge Moritz joins.