Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jacob Keith COOPER, Petitioner, v. U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
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 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, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2055, 201 L.Ed.2d 464 (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.
Response sent, thank you
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 15-73193
Decided: December 17, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)