Opinion ID: 619809
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim IV: copies of Mr. Jordan's mail and Exemption 7E

Text: The BOP relied on Exemption 7E to withhold 495 pages of Mr. Jordan's mail the SIS Office had copied. Again, Exemption 7E applies if the release of records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). The BOP argued that releasing the copied mail would reveal [t]he technique and procedure used for determining which items [are] of interest, thereby enabling inmates to circumvent staff's efforts. R. at 252, ¶ 57. Mr. Jordan argues that the BOP's own evidence contradicts its rationale. He points to a statement in the affidavit of a BOP paralegal that [w]hat is copied and placed in the information file is at the discretion of the SIS Technician reviewing the mail and is based on his or her professional judgment and experience. Id. at 500-01, ¶ 8. Mr. Jordan claims this statement shows there is no technique or procedure used for determining which mail items are of interestthat is, it is left to individual discretionand therefore any concern about circumvention of the law is unreasonable. He also argues that to the extent the technician's judgment and experience is a technique or procedure, it is now publicly known and therefore cannot be shielded under Exemption 7F. It does not appear that Mr. Jordan advanced these theories in the district court. The paralegal's affidavit was submitted in response to a court order that, in relevant part, requested a supplemental affidavit addressing the scope of the search for documents responsive to Claim IV. Id. at 496. In his response to the supplemental affidavit, Mr. Jordan argued that defendants failed to show that the technician's discretion was exercised parcel to or exclusively parcel to any law enforcement proceeding, or otherwise and more importantly connect any of the withheld documents/information to any law enforcement purpose or proceeding. Id. at 516-17. Accordingly, Jordan forfeited his new theories on this issue. See Richison v. Ernest Group, Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1128 (10th Cir.2011) (explaining that a theory is forfeited when a party simply fails to present it to the district court). When a matter is forfeited, we may review for plain error, but that review is limited to whether there was a clear legal error that implicates a miscarriage of justice. Id. Mr. Jordan has not addressed the belated nature of his new theories, let alone argued for plain-error review, which surely marks the end of the road for an argument for reversal not first presented to the district court. Id. at 1131.