Case Name: Albert L. BARNES, Sr., Petitioner, v. U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-05
Citations: 698 F. App'x 390
Docket Number: No. 17-70193
Parties: Albert L. BARNES, Sr., Petitioner, v. U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 390–390

Head Matter:
Albert L. BARNES, Sr., Petitioner, v. U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent.
No. 17-70193
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 26, 2017
FILED OCTOBER 5, 2017
Albert L. Barnes, Sr., Palmdale, CA, pro se.
Stephen G. Yoder, Securities & Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Albert L. Barnes, Sr. petitions pro se for review of an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") denying a whistleblower award. We have jurisdiction under to 15 U.S.C. § 76u-6(f). We deny the petition.
The Commission properly denied Barnes a whistleblower award because Barnes did not "provide[ ] original information to the Commission that led to the successful enforcement" of the subject .covered action. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(b)(l) (the Commission shall pay an award to a whistleblower who provides original information to the Commission that leads to the successful enforcement of a covered action); id. at § 78u-6(a)(l),. (6) (defining covered action and whistleblower); id. § 76u-6(f) (setting forth standard of review).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Barnes' contentions regarding the Commission's pending determinations of whistleblower awards for other covered actions.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.