The Honorable William G. Cambridge, Chief Judge, United States Distric t 1 Court for the District of Nebraska.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2173

___________ Beryle L. Johnston, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. United States Department of Justice, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 6, 1998 Filed: August 10, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Beryle L. Johnston appeals the district court & s judgment for the United States 1 Departm ent

of Justice (DOJ) following a bench trial in this action brought under th e Free dom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act of 197 4 (Privacy Act), 5 U.S.C. § 552a.-2-

We r eview the district court & s factual findings for clear error and its lega l conclusio ns de novo. See Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. , 48 F .3d 365, 369 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied , 516 U.S. 91 3 (1995).

John stonsought to compel disclosure of Drug Enforcement Administratio n (DEA) records related to third parties. We conclude these documents co uld be withheld fromdi sclosure pursuant to section 552(b)(7)(C), which exempts records fro m disclosure when disclosure “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” As the Supreme Court has recognized, “as a categorical matt er . . . a third party & s request for law enforcement records or information about a pri vate citizen can reasonably be expected to invade that citizen & s privacy,” and if the request seeks no information about the agency--as Johnston & s did not--the invasion of privacy is “unwarranted” under exemption (b)(7)(C). See United States D ep & t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press , 489 U.S. 749, 780 (1989). With respect to the DEA & s res ponse to Johnston & s request for records relating to him, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in concluding the DEA conducted
anadequate search. See Miller v. United States Dep & t of State , 779 F.2d 1378, 1383 (8th Cir. 1985) (agency & s FOIA sea rch will be deemed adequate where it demonstrates beyond material doubt that it has conducted sea rch reasonably calculated to uncover all relevantdo cuments). Likewise, the district court did not err in determining that th e DEA provided all responsive, non-exempt, agency records in its custody or control. See United States Dep & t of Justice v. Tax Analysts , 492 U. S. 136, 144-45 (1989) (to qualify
as “agency record” under FOIA, “agency must # either create or obtain & the requeste d materials,” and “agency must be in control of [them] at the time the FOIA request i s made”). We agree the DEA could properly redact or withhold information related to the identi ty of special agents, DEA personnel, local law enforcement personnel, an d other third parties, pursuant to exemptions (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(F). See Jones v. FBI , 41 F.3d 238, 246-47 (6th Cir. 1994) (“fact that an agent decided or was-3-

required to testify . . . does not give plaintiff a ri ght under FOIA to documents revealing the fact and nature of [agent & s] employment”); Watson v. United Sta tes Dep & t of Justice , 799 F. Supp. 193, 197 (D.D.C. 1992) (names of DEA special agents and other la w enforcement authorities within ambit of (b)(7)(F)). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.