Gregory Wayne Burwell, Appellant v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Appellee
Upon consideration of the motion for appointment of counsel; the motion for summary affirmance and the supplement, the opposition thereto, and the reply; and the motion for summary reversal, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted and the motion for summary reversal denied. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary affirmance. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court correctly determined that the Executive Office for the United States Attorneys' (“EOUSA”) search for records responsive to appellant's request for information was reasonable and fulfilled its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). See Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311, 314 (D.C. Cir. 2003); 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. Appellant has failed to “provide 'countervailing evidence' as to the adequacy of the agency's search.” Iturralde, 315 F.3d at 314 (citation omitted). In addition, the EOUSA properly withheld, pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(C), identifying information contained in the document released. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). The individuals appearing in the records have a significant privacy interest that appellant has not shown is defeated by the public's interest in disclosure. See Schrecker v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 349 F.3d 657, 661 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.