21-2537 Doe v. SEC UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 15th day of November, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: Jon O. Newman, Guido Calabresi, Steven J. Menashi, Circuit Judges. ____________________________________________ JOHN DOE, Petitioner, v. No. 21-2537 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent. ____________________________________________ For Petitioner: EZRA SPILKE, Law Offices of Ezra Spilke, Brooklyn, NY. For Respondent: EZEKIEL L. HILL, Attorney (Dan M. Berkovitz, General Counsel, Michael A. Conley, Solicitor, Stephen G. Yoder and Emily T. Parise, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Securities and Exchange Commission. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition is DENIED. John Doe petitions for review of an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) denying him a whistleblower award. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. In general, federal law directs the SEC to pay a monetary award to a whistleblower when that whistleblower “voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that led to the successful enforcement” of “any judicial or administrative action brought by the Commission under the securities 2 laws that results in monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000,000.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(a)(1), (b)(1). But the SEC may not make an award “to any whistleblower who is convicted of a criminal violation related to the judicial or administrative action for which the whistleblower otherwise could receive an award.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(c)(2)(B). John Doe is a whistleblower. He provided information to the SEC that assisted in a successful agency enforcement action with respect to an international bribery scheme (the “Covered Action”). After the SEC posted a notice on its website about the Covered Action, Doe timely filed an application for a whistleblower award pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(b)(1) in connection with both the Covered Action and a related action (the “Related Action”). By that point, however, Doe himself had pleaded guilty to bribery charges. A court had accepted Doe’s guilty plea but had not yet sentenced him. Because of the accepted guilty plea, the SEC determined that Doe had been “convicted of a criminal violation related to” the bribery scheme that was at issue in the Covered Action and the Related Action. 15 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals