Filed: Dec. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JACOB KEITH COOPER, No. 15-73193 Petitioner, SEC No. 3-15842 v. MEMORANDUM* U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Securities & Exchange Commission Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Jacob Keith Cooper petitions pro se for review of the Securities & Exchange Comm
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JACOB KEITH COOPER, No. 15-73193 Petitioner, SEC No. 3-15842 v. MEMORANDUM* U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Securities & Exchange Commission Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Jacob Keith Cooper petitions pro se for review of the Securities & Exchange Commi..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACOB KEITH COOPER, No. 15-73193
Petitioner, SEC No. 3-15842
v.
MEMORANDUM*
U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Securities & Exchange Commission
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Jacob Keith Cooper petitions pro se for review of the Securities & Exchange
Commission Administrative Law Judge’s decision permanently barring him from
participation in the securities industry and ordering the payment of a civil penalty
and disgorgement of revenues and consulting fees. We have jurisdiction under 15
*
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).
U.S.C. § 78y. We deny the petition.
The only issue Cooper raises in the opening brief is whether the ALJ was
properly appointed under the Appointments Clause. However, because Cooper did
not timely raise this issue before the Commission, he may not raise the issue on
appeal. See 15 U.S.C. § 78y(c)(1) (“No objection … may be considered by the
court unless it was urged before the Commission or there was reasonable ground
for failure to do so.”); Lucia v. SEC,
138 S. Ct. 2044, 2055 (2018) (“[O]ne who
makes a timely challenge to the constitutional validity of the appointment of an
officer who adjudicates his case is entitled to relief.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)); Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada v. United States Dept.
of Labor,
701 F.2d 770, 771 (9th Cir. 1983) (“All issues which a party contests on
appeal must be raised at the appropriate time under the agency practice.”); see also
Malouf v. SEC,
933 F.3d 1248, 1255-58 (10th Cir. 2019).
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 reply.
See Padgett v. Wright,
587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION DENIED.
2 15-73193