NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 4 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID GIVENS, No. 16-72207
Petitioner,
SEC File No. 2016-12
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S. MEMORANDUM*
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Securities & Exchange Commission
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
David Givens petitions pro se for review of an order of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (“SEC”) denying his claim for a whistleblower award
under Section 21F of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act. We have jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 78u–6(f). The SEC’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
determination may be set aside only if “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in
accordance with law,” or “unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 706(2)(A), (2)(E); see also 15 U.S.C. § 78u–6(f); Ponce v. SEC, 345 F.3d 722,
728 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition.
The record supports the SEC’s determination that Givens was not entitled to
a whistleblower award because Givens did not provide information to the SEC
“that led to the successful enforcement” of an SEC action. 15 U.S.C. § 78u–6(b);
see also 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F–4(c) (defining information that leads to successful
enforcement).
We reject as meritless Givens’s contention that the SEC denied him due
process of law.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-72207