`
`No. 22-11226
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
`Plaintiff-Appellee,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`TIMOTHY BARTON,
`Defendant-Appellant.
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of Texas
`No. 3:22-cv-02118-X
`
`
`
`RESPONSE OF APPELLEE
`SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
`TO RECEIVER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
`TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DOMINICK V. FREDA
`Assistant General Counsel
`
`
`
`
`
`EZEKIEL L. HILL
`Appellate Counsel
`
`Securities and Exchange Commission
`100 F Street, N.E.
`Washington, D.C. 20549
`202.551.7724 (Hill)
`hillez@sec.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 22-11226 Document: 55 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2023
`
`On April 5, 2023, Cortney C. Thomas, the district court-appointed receiver
`
`(“Receiver”), filed a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief responding to
`
`appellant Timothy Barton’s brief. On April 11, 2023, the Court requested that
`
`appellee Securities and Exchange Commission respond to the Receiver’s motion.
`
`In the Commission’s view, the Receiver’s motion should be granted.
`
`Barton appeals from a district court order that granted the Receiver’s motion
`
`for approval to sell certain real property. ROA.2740, 2781. Because it was the
`
`Receiver (and only the Receiver) that sought the appealed-from order (see
`
`ROA.2373), the Court’s consideration of the appeal may benefit from the
`
`Receiver’s proposed amicus brief.1 Moreover, as the Receiver’s motion states,
`
`“the Receiver possesses the most-up-to-date and specific information regarding the
`
`status of the [property at issue].”
`
`The Receiver’s motion for leave to file an amicus brief should be granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 While the Court denied the Receiver’s requests to be named an appellee,
`party in interest, or intervenor in this appeal, the Court granted the Receiver’s
`request to file a motion to dismiss as an amicus brief.
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 22-11226 Document: 55 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/12/2023
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`DOMINICK V. FREDA
`Assistant General Counsel
`
`/s/ Ezekiel L. Hill
`EZEKIEL L. HILL
`Appellate Counsel
`
`Securities and Exchange Commission
`100 F Street, N.E.
`Washington, D.C. 20549
`202.551.7724 (Hill)
`hillez@sec.gov
`
`
`April 12, 2023
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 22-11226 Document: 55 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/12/2023
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND FILING
`
`I certify that on April 12, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing response
`
`with the Clerk of the Court for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
`
`through the Court’s CM/ECF system. Service on counsel of record will be
`
`accomplished through the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`I further certify that this electronic filing is an exact copy of the paper
`
`document, that any privacy redactions have been made, and that this electronic
`
`filing was scanned for, and found to be free of, viruses.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ezekiel L. Hill
`Ezekiel L. Hill
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 12, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 22-11226 Document: 55 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/12/2023
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`I certify that the foregoing response complies with the type-volume
`
`limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 27(d)(2) because it contains 179 words, excluding the
`
`parts exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f).
`
`I further certify that the foregoing response complies with the typeface
`
`requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5)(A) and the type-style requirements of
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced,
`
`Roman-style, 14-point typeface.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ezekiel L. Hill
`Ezekiel L. Hill
`
`Dated: April 12, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site