Case Name: Darryl L. HRONEK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY; USA, Sued as United States Attorney's Office, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-22
Citations: 7 F. App'x 591
Docket Number: No. 99-36055; D.C. No. CV-97-01146-REJ
Parties: Darryl L. HRONEK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY; USA, Sued as United States Attorney’s Office, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 7
Pages: 591–592

Head Matter:
Darryl L. HRONEK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY; USA, Sued as United States Attorney’s Office, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 99-36055. D.C. No. CV-97-01146-REJ.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2001.
Decided March 22, 2001.
Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Darryl L. Hronek appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his Freedom of Information Act action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In a FOIA case where the adequacy of the factual basis is not disputed, this court reviews de novo the district court's legal conclusion whether the FOIA exempts a document from disclosure. See Schiffer v. FBI, 78 F.3d 1405, 1409 (9th Cir.1996).
Hronek contends that the exemptions claimed by the defendants are invalid, since they relate to documents released to him over the course of his criminal conviction. This contention is rejected. See Mobile Oil Corp. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 879 F.2d 698, 701 (9th Cir.1989) (holding that agency release of certain documents in a litigation environment does not necessary waive any applicable exemption as to other documents).
Hronek's remaining contentions, including his contentions regarding the personal knowledge requirement, his motion for extension of time, the adequacy of DEA's search, and the public interest in his case, are rejected.
AFFIRMED.
. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.