ade pursuant to exemptions (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552). Some material redacted under FOIA exemption (b)(7)(E) would more properly have been annotated with FOIA exemption (b)(2) and that under (b)(6)/(b)(7)(C) under (b)(7)(C) alone. Except for the preceding comments concerning the annotation of some of the material redacted, we affirm the determination of the SAC, El Paso. The material redacted was properly withheld and nothing further can be restored in the documents released to you. We have reexamined other documents considered by the SAC, El Paso, which were withheld in their entirety. In addition, as stated in our note to you of June 16, 1999, we have located additional relevant documents which we have considered for release to you under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the FOIA. We are releasing to you, with some redactions under exemptions of the FOIA, one Investigative Case Record and four Reports of Investigatio

HQ 585670 August 13, 1999 DIS-3 RR:IT:DL 585670 DLD Johnny Holbert Koonce 201 West Kerria McAllen, Texas 78501 Dear Mr. Koonce: This is in response to your letter of December 21, 1998, in which you appeal the partial denial by the Special Agent in Charge (SAC), El Paso, Texas, of your Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act request of September 6, 1998, for records pertaining to you and/or the Koonce Organization. On November 24, 1998, the SAC, El Paso, released 18 pages of documents to you, which consisted of TECS records plus two Reports of Investigation (ROI’s). Some redactions of information were made pursuant to exemptions (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552). Some material redacted under FOIA exemption (b)(7)(E) would more properly have been annotated with FOIA exemption (b)(2) and that under (b)(6)/(b)(7)(C) under (b)(7)(C) alone. Except for the preceding comments concerning the annotation of some of the material redacted, we affirm the determination of the SAC, El Paso. The material redacted was properly withheld and nothing further can be restored in the documents released to you. We have reexamined other documents considered by the SAC, El Paso, which were withheld in their entirety. In addition, as stated in our note to you of June 16, 1999, we have located additional relevant documents which we have considered for release to you under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the FOIA. We are releasing to you, with some redactions under exemptions of the FOIA, one Investigative Case Record and four Reports of Investigation (ROI’s). The FOIA exemption invoked is indicated near the material redacted on the documents. Exemptions (b)(2), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D) and (b)(7)(E) were used. Certain other ROI’s were withheld in their entirety pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(7)(F), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(D). Exemption (b)(2) 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 law enforcement officers and third parties were redacted to preserve their personal privacy. Certain information withheld pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C) was so inextricably involved with your name or information pertaining to you so interwoven therein, that release of the disclosable segments thereof would be utterly meaningless. See SafetyCard Services v SEC, 926F.2d 1197. Exemption (b)(7)(D) of the FOIA pertains to information compiled for law enforcement purposes to the extent that the production of such information could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis. Certain information was furnished by a confidential source, identified only by a confidential source number, indicating that the source had expressly been granted confidentiality. See United States Department of Justice v Landano, 508 U.S. 165. Exemption (b)(7)(E) permits the withholding of records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information would disclose techniques and procedures 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)). Exemption (b)(7)(F) permits the withholding of records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual. The information withheld pursuant to this exemption may also be withheld pursuant to exemptions 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C) and (D) for the reasons set forth herein 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 Enclosures