Court Opinion

ID: 9834555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 00:00:32.282043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:22.912310
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11226        Document: 00516882331             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/01/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                              Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                     September 1, 2023
                                       No. 22-11226                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                           Clerk

   Securities and Exchange Commission,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Timothy Barton,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:22-CV-2118
                     ______________________________

                       ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
                        AND REHEARING EN BANC

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Because no member of the panel or judge in regular active service
   requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc (Fed. R. App. P.
   35 and 5th Cir. R. 35), the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11226     Document: 00516882331           Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/01/2023

                                    No. 22-11226

   The petition for panel rehearing is also DENIED. We withdraw our
   previous opinion at 2023 WL 4060191, and substitute the following:
                                       ***
          In a separate appeal in this matter, our court vacated the receivership
   because the district court had not made findings sufficient to establish the
   receiver’s jurisdiction over Barton’s property. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v.
   Barton, No. 22-11132, -- F.4th -- (5th Cir. 2023). That opinion, as reissued,
   also suspended the receiver’s ability to sell receivership property while
   awaiting vacatur. Id. (“[T]he receiver’s power to sell or dispose of property
   belonging to receivership entities, including the power to complete sales or
   disposals of property already approved by the district court, is immediately
   suspended.”). The receiver can no longer sell Barton’s home, which was at
   issue here. Given these developments, we DISMISS this appeal as MOOT.

                                             2