FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 3, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 83 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 8- cv -0 19 56 -VMC- TBM NOLAN NATHANIEL EDWARDS, Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEY S, Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st3, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, W ILSON, andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Nol anNath an ie l Edward s, a fe de ral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g p ro se, app eal s t he

gr an t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Exe cu ti ve Offic e fo r Uni te d S ta te s Att orne y s (EOUSA) i n h is civ il act io n b ro ug htpu rs uantto th e Fre ed om of In fo rm at io n Act(FOIA). No re ve rs ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af firm . 1 The FOIA requi res a fed eral ag en cy -- upo n areque stforreco rd s re as on ab ly de sc rib in g d oc um en ts in th atag en cy ’s po ss es si on -- to m ak e th os e d oc um en ts pr om pt ly avai labl e to an y

pe rs on un le ss th e in fo rm at io n wi th in th e rec or ds is pr ot ect edfro m

di sc lo su re b y

a st atut ory

ex em pt io n. 5 U.S.C. § 5 52 (a)( 3) , (b)
. The di sc lo su re p ro vi si on s o f th e FOIA are co ns tru edbro ad ly; an d the ex em pt io ns are i nt erp ret edna rro wly. Ely v. F.B.I ., 78 1 F .2d14 87 , 14 89 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). The ag en cy be ars th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g t ha t a p art ic ul ar p ie ce o f in fo rm at io n i s ex em pt fro m di sc lo su re. Id . at 1 48 9- 90
. Edwar ds so ug htin fo rm at io n abo uthi s p rio r cri m in al cas e, sp eci fic al ly, in fo rm at io n abo utst at em en ts hi s co de fen da nt , Sha wn Will ia m s, m ad e to th e po li ce. Inres po ns e to Edward s’s re qu es t, the EOUSA pro vi de d Edward s wi th fiv e an d aha lf p ag es of m at eri al ; b utth e EOUSA withh el d s ev enpa ge s, cl ai m in g t ha t th e in fo rm at io n was ex em ptfro m di sc lo su re b ecau se itreas on ab ly cou ldbe
We reviewthe district court’s grant of summar y judgme nt de novo; and we view the 1 evidenc e and dr aw a ll reasona ble infer ence s in favor of the non-movingparty . Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of F la. v. United States, 516 F .3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2008). 2ex pe ct edto co ns ti tu te anun warra nt edin va si on of p ers on al pri va cy or c ou ld
reas on ab ly be ex pe ct edto di sc lo se a co nf id en ti al so ur ce. See 5 U.S.C. § 2 55 2( b) (7 )(C) , (D). On ap pe al , Edward s m ak es no ch al le ng e to th e ap pl ic ab il it y of t he se ex em pt io ns ; i ns te ad , he a rg ue s t ha t the EOUSA waiv edth e ex em pt io ns be cau se it earl ie r ha d d is cl os edth e d oc um en ts th athe reque st ed . Edward s b as es th is arg um en t o n apubl ic reco rd s re qu es t h e m ad e u nd er the Flo rid a Publ ic Reco rd s Act wh ere h e rec ei ve d ared act edin ve st ig at iv e supp le m en t re po rt p rep aredby the St . Pet ers bu rg Po li ce Dep art m en t tha t d es cri be d h is co de fen da nt ’s deb rie fin g. If an ag en cy

vo lu nt ari ly dis cl os es in fo rm at io n, i t m ay no t cl ai m

in a la te r pr oc eed in g t ha t the pre vi ou sl y rel eas edin fo rm at io n i s ex em ptfro m di sc lo su re. Fl or id a Hou se of R ep res en ta ti ve s v . U.S. Dep’t o f Co m m erce , 96 1 F .2d94 1, 9 46 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) . ButEdward s h as no t es tabl is he d tha t the EOUSA alrea dy had di sc lo se d t he in fo rm at io n i t wi th he ldin hi s ca se . Alth ou ghEdward s s ug ge st ed(in hi s re sp on se to th e EOUSA’ s s umm ary jud gm en t m ot io n) th atth e EOUSA had pr ov id edhi m

with aco py of th e in ve st ig at iv e supp le m en t re po rt, h is supp orti ng

The withheld doc uments contained ( 1) name s and identifying da ta of other

suspects in 2 the investig ation; (2) the identity of a third pa

rty who was me rely

mentioned in the investig ation; and (3) names a

nd other important information about law-e nforc ement off icer s who participated in the investigation. 3ev id en ce re ve al edth atth e St . Pet ers bu rg Po li ce Dep art m en t ac tu al ly dis cl os edth e

rep ort. Tha t Edward s o bt ai ne d aco py of th e in ve st ig at iv e rep ort fr om an ot he r so ur ce d oe s n otest ab li sh th atth e EOUSA vo lu nt ari ly w ai ve d a ny FOIA
ex em pt io n o n t ha t i nf

orm at io n. Se e L & C Ma rin e Tran sp ort, Ltd . v. Un it ed St at es , 74 0 F .2d91 9, 9 22 , 92 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 4) (ex pl ai ni ng th ata pe rs on “ do es no t lo se hi s p riv acy int eres t u nd er [5 U.S.C. § 5 52 (b )(7 )(C) ] be cau se hi s i de nt it y as a witne ss m ay

be di sc lo se d t hr ou gh ot he r m ean s” an d t ha t the “pe r se li m it at io n o n di sc lo su re u nd er [5 U.S.C. § 5 52 (b )(7 )(D)] do es no t d is ap pe ar i f th e id en ti ty of th e co nf id en ti al so ur ce l at er b eco m es kn own th ro ug h o th er m ean s” ). Edwar ds sh owe d n o g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factab ou t wh ethe r th e EOUSA waiv edit s ri gh t t o i nv ok e th e st atut ory ex em pt io ns in th e FOIA; an d t he di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly gran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e EOUSA. See Fed .R.Ci v.P . 56
. AFFIR MED.

4