eleased to you with some material redacted pursuant to exemptions (b)(2), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E) of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E)).

HQ 585653 April 7, 1999 DIS-3 RR:IT:DL 585653 DLD Mr. Santos De Aza B.O.P. No. 12952-069 Unit F-B 2680 Highway 301 South Jesup, Georgia 31599 Dear Mr. De Aza: This is in response to your letter of January 14, 1999, in which you appeal the partial denial of your initial Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552) request of October 31, 1998. On December 15, 1998, the Executive Director, Administration, Planning and Policy of the Office of Investigations responded to your request. Two documents comprising three pages were released to you with some material redacted pursuant to exemptions (b)(2), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E) of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E)). In your appeal, you stated your belief that other documents must exist upon which your indictment and prosecution were based. The Office of Investigations has informed us that they did locate two additional documents subsequent to your appeal, which they sent to you on March l, 1999. Certain portions of the two newly released documents were withheld pursuant to exemptions (b)(2) and (b)(7)(C) of the FOIA. These two newly released documents are not considered to be included in your appeal of January 14, 1999, and were therefore not considered in this response to your appeal of January 14, 1999. Accordingly, you have the right to appeal their partial denial in the future. We know of no other records in Customs possession which pertain to you. With regard to the two documents released to you on December 15, l998, upon which you base your appeal, we affirm the determination by the Director, Administration, Planning and Policy of the Office of Investigations that the redacted portions of the two documents released were properly withheld and that nothing further should be released. Exemption (b)(2) of the FOIA was employed to withhold case and file numbers and other administrative markings which pertain to the administrative practices of the agency and do not pertain to you. It was also employed to withhold information, the disclosure of which would reveal investigative practices and procedures which, if disclosed, would assist violators and potential violators in circumventing the laws and regulations, avoiding detection and evading apprehension (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2)). Exemption (b)(7)(C) of the FOIA permits the withholding of information compiled for law enforcement purposes, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C)). The names of Customs officers and other third parties were redacted to preserve their personal privacy. The information withheld pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(E) should more properly have been withheld pursuant to 5 U.S.C.(b)(2) for the reasons stated above. You may obtain judicial review of this decision pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) in the United States District Court in the District in which you reside or have a principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Sincerely, Lee H. Kramer, FOIA Appeals Officer Disclosure Law Branch