Court Opinion

ID: 9398431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 14:01:34.902298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:33.529820
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-5232                                                September Term, 2022
                                                                     1:21-cv-02838-JEB
                                                      Filed On: May 31, 2023
William Edward Powell,

             Appellant

      v.

Internal Revenue Service and United States
Department of the Treasury,

             Appellees

            ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

      BEFORE:       Millett, Pillard, and Rao, Circuit Judges

                                    JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

        ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s June 30, 2022 and August
29, 2022 orders be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that appellant was
not affected by the Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) decision to process his document
requests under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Appellant has
not shown that he would have received different or additional documents if the agency
had processed his requests under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. In addition, the
district court correctly concluded that, insofar as appellant made valid requests, the IRS
gave him all responsive records located through an adequate search. The court need
not consider appellant’s arguments on this point, which were not raised in his opening
brief. See Pennsylvania Elec. Co. v. FERC, 11 F.3d 207, 209 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“We
have said before, and we say again, that ordinarily we will not consider arguments
raised for the first time in a reply brief.”). In any event, the declaration of Senior
Disclosure Specialist Timothy Bouks demonstrates that the IRS’s search for responsive
documents was adequate. See Mobley v. CIA, 806 F.3d 568, 581 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
(“Agency affidavits—so long as they are relatively detailed and non-conclusory—are
accorded a presumption of good faith, which cannot be rebutted by purely speculative
claims about the existence and discoverability of other documents.”) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-5232                                                September Term, 2022
       Appellant requested certain records retrievable through the IRS’s Information
Data Retrieval System using specified “command codes.” The Bouks declaration
explains that, while some of the command codes specified by appellant were defective,
the IRS gave appellant all responsive records located by using the specified command
codes that were valid and complete. The declaration further explains that the IRS also
gave appellant additional records located by using certain command codes beyond
those he specified. Finally, appellant contends that the records he received from the
agency are missing certain information that he thought they would contain, but this
assertion is insufficient to rebut the statement in Bouks’ declaration that no data was
altered or removed from the records.

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

                                       Per Curiam

                                          Page 2