Court Opinion

ID: 9953016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 14:01:11.288273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:35.924735
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 23-1241                                                 September Term, 2023
                                                                            SEC-2023-80
                                                       Filed On: March 21, 2024
Gunes Biray,

               Petitioner

      v.

Securities and Exchange Commission,

               Respondent

                  PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM AN ORDER OF THE
                    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

      BEFORE:         Henderson, Millett, and Walker, Circuit Judges

                                     JUDGMENT

      This petition for review of an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(“SEC”) was considered on the briefs and appendix filed by the parties. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

        ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition for review be denied. Petitioner
challenges the SEC’s August 25, 2023 order denying his application for a whistleblower
award. However, he has not shown that information he provided to the SEC “led to the
successful enforcement” of the covered action, as required under 15 U.S.C. § 78u-
6(b)(1), and the SEC’s determination to the contrary is supported by substantial
evidence in the form of declarations from one of the primary enforcement attorneys
assigned to the underlying investigation, see generally Doe v. SEC, 846 Fed. Appx. 1,
3-4 (D.C. Cir. 2021). Moreover, assuming that he has not forfeited the argument by
failing to raise it in his response to the SEC’s preliminary determination, petitioner was
not eligible for an award in any related action because he was not entitled to an award
in the covered action. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(a)(5); 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.21F-3(b)(1) and
240.21F-11(a); Belaski v. SEC, 839 Fed. Appx. 566, 566 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________

       Petitioner also raises procedural objections to the SEC’s handling of his
information, such as allegedly rushed consideration of his submission, failure to forward
the information to others within the agency, and omitting additional searches following
up on his information. Whether or not any such errors occurred in the handling of the
investigation, petitioner’s tips were not actually used in any underlying investigative or
prosecutorial action, so no whistleblower award is due.

        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 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

                                             2