NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERT L. BARNES, Sr., No. 17-70193
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Respondent.
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.
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
*
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).
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)(1)
(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)(1), (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.
2 17-70193