Filed: Jan. 31, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10327 Summary Calendar ARABIAN SHIELD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CV-624-BD - January 28, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Arabian Shield Development Company appeals the district court’s order granting the CIA’s motion for summary
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10327 Summary Calendar ARABIAN SHIELD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CV-624-BD - January 28, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Arabian Shield Development Company appeals the district court’s order granting the CIA’s motion for summary ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10327
Summary Calendar
ARABIAN SHIELD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:98-CV-624-BD
--------------------
January 28, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Arabian Shield Development Company appeals the district
court’s order granting the CIA’s motion for summary judgment.
Arabian Shield sought judicial review of the CIA’s decision
denying Arabian Shield’s requests for information under the
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (FOIA). The CIA
denied the requests because it determined that the fact of the
existence or nonexistence of the requested information was
classified pursuant to Executive Order 12958, and would relate
directly to information concerning intelligence sources and
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-10327
-2-
methods which the Director of Central Intelligence has the
responsibility to protect from disclosure pursuant to the
National Security Act of 1947, 50 U.S.C. § 403(d)(3). Thus, the
information was exempt from disclosure under FOIA §§ 552(b)(1)
and (b)(3).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Arabian Shield has not shown that the district court erred in
concluding that the CIA had met its burden of establishing an
exemption under FOIA § 552(b)(1). See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
Nor has Arabian Shield shown that the district court erred in
concluding that the information was exempt from disclosure under
FOIA § 552(b)(3). See Knight v. CIA,
872 F.2d 660 (5th Cir.
1989).
AFFIRMED.