Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-94-05373/USCOURTS-caDC-94-05373-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Appellee
United States Department of Justice
Appellee
Donald Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Filed, 1995

Filed November 14, 1995

No. 94-5373

DONALD WILLIAMS,

APPELLANT 

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

APPELLEES 

-

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 90cv2299)

-

On Motion For Summary Affirmance

-

David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and Dale A. Baich, Assistant State Public Defender, Ohio

Public Defender Commission, were on the opposition to the motion for summary affirmance, for

appellant.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney, R. Craig Lawrence, and Michael T. Ambrosino,

Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the motion for summary affirmance, for appellees.

Before: SILBERMAN, SENTELLE, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM: Donald Williams appeals an order of the district court granting summary

judgment in favor ofthe FederalBureau ofInvestigation and the United States Department ofJustice

in this action to compel disclosure of information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5

U.S.C. § 552 (1994). Because we agree that the government's invocation of FOIA exemption 7(D)

USCA Case #94-5373 Document #162103 Filed: 11/14/1995 Page 1 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

is proper under United States Department of Justice v. Landano, 113 S. Ct. 2014 (1993), we grant

the Government's motion for summary affirmance.

I.

During the early 1970s, Williams served as Deputy Minister of Defense for Afro Set, a

Cleveland-based black nationalist organization that the FBI considered extremist and violent. Afro

Set was organized by former members of the Nationalist Party for Self Defense of New Libya, an

organization which disbanded following the arrest in 1968 of several of its leaders on suspicion of

instigating a Cleveland-area riot. The riot resulted in deployment of the National Guard and the

deaths of law enforcement officers. According to FBI sources, Afro Set advocated hatred of white

people and "outside" authority and had as its main goal the complete takeover and control of

Cleveland's black community. The FBI therefore considered Afro Set a "threat to the internal security

of this country." See Second Declaration of Regina M. Superneau ¶ 12 [hereinafter Second

Superneau Decl.].

In December 1970, the FBI initiated a formal investigation of Afro Set based on information

that the organization was "making plans to foment[ ] or stimulate[ ] racial disturbances." Second

Superneau Decl. WW9, 12. In particular, the FBI suspected Afro Set of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2383

(rebellion or insurrection), 2384 (seditious conspiracy), and 2385 (advocating overthrow of the

government). As "Minister of Defense" and a leader of Afro Set, Williams was a target of the

investigation.

The FBI based its belief that Afro Set was violent at least in part on evidence that the group

illegally maintained and used firearms. For example, on October 20, 1970, Afro Set was involved in

a disturbance which culminated in the indictment of Afro Set leader Harllel Jones for shooting and

kidnapping a rival black nationalist. During a raid of Afro Set headquarters immediately following

that incident, police seized a host of weapons and ammunition, including a 12-gauge sawed-off

shotgun and a .30 caliber carbine. A year later police confiscated two pistols and six rifles during

simultaneous raids of two Afro Set "shops."

As Afro Set's Defense Minister, Williams played an active role in arming Afro Set. A trace

USCA Case #94-5373 Document #162103 Filed: 11/14/1995 Page 2 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

of the shotgun and the carbine seized from Afro Set headquarters in October 1970 revealed that

Williams had purchased themillegally, having failed to disclose a prior felony conviction. This illegal

purchase was a federal offense for which Williams wasformally charged. Williams was also arrested

and charged with unlawful possession of weapons on at least two other occasions during his tenure

as Afro Set's Defense Minister: in July 1971, he was arrested and charged with carrying a concealed

weapon; and on August 19, 1971, FBI agents arrested Williams after determining that he was

carrying a .22 caliber pistol and twenty-six cartridges of ammunition.

InOctober 1971, Williams, Afro Set leader HarllelJones, and severalother Afro Set members

were charged with first degree murder for the August 7, 1970 shooting of two police officers.

According to the indictment,Jones ordered the shooting to avenge the killing of an Afro Set member

by a security guard. During the arrest of the suspects named in the indictment, police seized two AK

47 machine guns, a case of dynamite, four handguns, two machine gun barrels, homemade bombs,

and various other paraphernalia allegedly used to discipline Afro Set members. Williams pled guilty

to lesser charges. Although Harllel Jones was convicted of the murder, his conviction was later

overturned because prosecutors had failed to turn over to the defense potentiallyexculpatorymaterial

asrequired by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). See Jones v. Jago, 428 F. Supp. 405, 408-10

(N.D. Ohio 1977).

Following Williams'srelease fromprison in 1973, the FBI closed itsinvestigation of him. See

Second Superneau Decl. WW 19-21. At roughly the same time, the FBI ended its surveillance of

Afro Set, which had disintegrated afterJones'smurder conviction. See Declaration ofRobert Moran,

exh. 2, pt. 1, doc. 26 [hereinafter Moran Decl.].

In 1984, Williams was convicted and sentenced to death for ordering the murder of a man

who had robbed his girlfriend ofmoney and illegal narcoticsshe was helping Williams distribute. See

State v. Williams, No. 49185, 1986 WL 1905 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 13, 1986), aff'd 38 Ohio St.3d 346

(1988). Seeking information to help him in his challenge to his capital conviction, Williams in April

and May 1989 requested copies of all records pertaining to him in the files at FBI Headquarters and

at the FBI's Cleveland and Cincinnati field offices. The FBI released hundreds of documents, but

USCA Case #94-5373 Document #162103 Filed: 11/14/1995 Page 3 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

withheld many on the ground that they contained information exempt from disclosure under FOIA

law enforcement exemption 7(C), which guards against unwarranted invasion of privacy, and 7(D),

which protects confidential sources. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(7)(C), (D) (1994). Dissatisfied with

the FBI's response, Williams sought to compel disclosure of the withheld information. After

exhausting his administrative remedies, Williams filed suit in the district court. Following extensive

briefing and the filing of numerous affidavits, the district court granted the Government's motion for

summary judgment. See Williams v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 822 F. Supp. 808 (D.D.C.

1993).

On appeal, we summarilyaffirmed the district court's determinationthat the recordsrequested

were compiled for legitimate law enforcement purposes and the district court's conclusion that the

information withheld under exemption 7(C) is exempt from disclosure. See Williams v. Federal

Bureau of Investigation, No. 93-5221, 1994 WL 36019 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 27, 1994). We remanded,

however, for reconsideration of whether the documents withheld under exemption 7(D) are entitled

to protection fromdisclosure in light ofthe Supreme Court'sintervening decision in Landano. Under

Landano, the government is not entitled to a presumption that all sources who supply information

to the FBI in the course of a criminal investigation are confidential within the meaning of FOIA

exemption 7(D). Landano, 113 S. Ct. at 2019-23.

Following our remand, the FBI reexamined the documents previously withheld under

exemption 7(D). Attempting to comply with Landano, it released additionalrecordsto Williams but

continued asserting the exemption with respect to others. The parties then filed cross-motions for

summary judgment. With its motion, the Government submitted an affidavit from FBI Special Agent

Robert Moran explaining that the FBI withheld five categories of information on the ground that this

information was obtained pursuant to express grants of confidentiality: (1) source symbols, file

numbers, and dates of contact pertaining to confidential informants who reported information to the

FBI on a regular basis; (2) names of confidential informants who reported information to the FBI on

a regular basis; (3) information provided by confidential informants who reported information to the

FBI on a regular basis; (4) identities of and information provided by individuals whose employment

USCA Case #94-5373 Document #162103 Filed: 11/14/1995 Page 4 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

gave them access to information which they provided to the FBI; and (5) information provided by

a financial institution. See Moran Decl. WW 11-16.

The Moran affidavit further stated that the FBI withheld four categories of information for

which an implied assurance of confidentiality reasonably could be inferred: (1) identities of and

information provided by individuals who were current or former members of Afro Set or related

organizations; (2) identities of and information provided by nonfederal law enforcement agencies,

where the information provided was of an intelligence nature and generally was not provided to the

public; (3) identity of and information provided by a person whose employment gave him access to

Afro Set and other extremist groups; and (4) information provided by an Ohio state employee which

was so singular in nature that to release the information would divulge the source's identity. See id.

WW 17-29.

Concluding that these categories of information remained exempt even under Landano, the

district court granted the Government's motion for summary judgment and denied Williams's

cross-motion.

II.

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo. Gallant v. NLRB, 26 F.3d 168, 171

(D.C. Cir. 1994). In FOIA cases, "this requires that we ascertain whether the agency has sustained

its burden of demonstrating that the documents requested are ... exempt from disclosure...." Id.

Summaryjudgment maybe granted based on agencyaffidavitsif " "theycontain reasonable specificity

of detail rather than mere conclusory statements, and if they are not called into question by

contradictory evidence in the record or by evidence of agency bad faith.' " Id. (quoting Halperin v.

CIA, 629 F.2d 144, 148 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).

Exemption 7(D) protectsfrommandatory disclosure records or information compiled for law

enforcement purposes to the extent their production "could reasonably be expected to disclose the

identity of a confidential source ... and, [in the case of a criminal or national security investigation],

information furnished by a confidential source." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D) (1994). To determine

whether FOIA exemption 7(D) applies, we thus ask whether the information was furnished by a

USCA Case #94-5373 Document #162103 Filed: 11/14/1995 Page 5 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

confidential source during the course of a legitimate law enforcement investigation. See Simon v.

Dep't of Justice, 980 F.2d 782, 784 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

Williams argues that the withheld information was not compiled for a legitimate law

enforcement purpose. In the first appeal of this case, however, we specifically determined that the

FBI'sinvestigation of Afro Set and its leaders had a legitimate law enforcement purpose. We see no

reason to revisit that issue here. See Crocker v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., 49 F.3d 735, 739 (D.C. Cir.

1995) (application of "law ofthe case" doctrine is proper where there has been no intervening change

in the law, and appellant has not shown that the court's earlier conclusion is clearly erroneous). The

only issue before us, then, is whether the sources who furnished the information were confidential.

A source is confidential within the meaning of exemption 7(D) if the source " "provided

information under an express assurance of confidentiality or in circumstances from which such an

assurance could be reasonably inferred.' " Landano, 113 S. Ct. at 2019-20 (quoting S. Rep. No.

1200, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 13 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6267, 6291). In Landano,

the Supreme Court explained: "A source should be deemed confidential if the source furnished

information with the understanding that the FBI would not divulge the communication except to the

extent ... necessary for law enforcement purposes." Id. at 2020.

Because the FBI obtained the five categories of information covered by paragraphs 11

through 16 of the Moran affidavit under express assurances of confidentiality, they are exempt from

disclosure. To determine whether the four categories of information that the FBI obtained without

express assurances of confidentiality are exempt fromdisclosure, we look to Landano. Although the

Court rejected the view that allsources who supply information to the FBI in the course of a criminal

investigation are presumed confidential, it nonetheless held that courts may infer confidentiality in

certain narrowly defined circumstances. See id. at 2023. According to Landano, the character of

the crime and the source's relation to it are relevant factors in determining whether a source spoke

to the FBI with the understanding that the source's cooperation would remain confidential. Id.

Applying Landano to the facts of this case, we find that the crimes the FBI suspected Afro

Set of committingrebellion or insurrection, seditious conspiracy, and advocating overthrow of the

USCA Case #94-5373 Document #162103 Filed: 11/14/1995 Page 6 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

governmentcertainly qualify as serious offenses. The record is replete with documentation of

violent crimes by Afro Set members, demonstrating Afro Set's willingnessto use violence against its

enemies. We also have no doubt that the sources were sufficiently close to Afro Set to justify

inferring that they spoke to the FBI under implied assurances of confidentiality.

The record supports the Government's assertion that those who were, or recently had been,

members of Afro Set and who supplied inside information about Afro Set to the FBI were at risk of

retaliation, harassment, and bodily harm. See Moran Decl. ¶ 20. It is therefore reasonable to infer

that those sources spoke to the FBI with the understanding that their cooperation would remain

confidential. Similarly, the source whose employment provided access to information about Afro Set,

see id. ¶ 28, risked retaliation if the source's cooperation with the FBI became known. It is therefore

reasonable to infer that this source spoke to the FBI under an implicit assurance of confidentiality.

The next category, non-public information of an intelligence nature that locallawenforcement

agencies supplied to the FBI, see Moran Decl. WW 22-26, may at first glance appear to include all

information obtained by local police while investigating Afro Set's criminal activity. After Landano,

such information is no longer presumed exempt. Yet the Moran affidavit makes clear why this

information is exempt from disclosure in this case. Local law enforcement agencies were gathering

"intelligence," that is, secret information, about Afro Set from confidential sources at the same time

the FBI wasinvestigating Afro Set. See id. ¶ 25. These local agencies shared their information with

the FBI on the understanding that the FBI would not disclose it to the public, particularly because

to do so might reveal the identity of sources to whom assurances of confidentiality had been made

by local law enforcement officials. Id. ¶ 26. Sources that were so close to Afro Set that they could

supply intelligence information to local law enforcement officials would have been vulnerable to

retaliation iftheir cooperation had been disclosed. Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that local law

enforcement agencies shared information obtained from such sources with the expectation that the

FBI would keep the information confidential.

Finally, the information provided by an Ohio state employee, see id. ¶ 29, was so unique to

the source that the source had reason to believe public disclosure of the information might subject

USCA Case #94-5373 Document #162103 Filed: 11/14/1995 Page 7 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the source to the risk of violent retaliation by Afro Set. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable

to infer that the source provided this information to the FBI with the understanding that it would

remain confidential.

III.

The Government's nondisclosure of information under FOIA exemption 7(D) was proper

under Landano. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's order granting summary

judgment for the Government.

So ordered.

USCA Case #94-5373 Document #162103 Filed: 11/14/1995 Page 8 of 8