Whether the district court and appeals court erred in improperly categorizing and misapplying FOIA/Privacy Act exemptions, failing to compel agency compliance with statutory requirements, and denying due process and access to public records

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : {1] Ground One : The District Court, Appeals Court for the District.of Columbia Circuit committed reversible legal error, by improperly categorizing and misappling exemption 5 U.S.C.§552a(j)(2), and inaccurately interpreting its meaning against Marino. And then improperly & unconstitutionally using it against Marino's FOIA/PA Requests, . ‘ without any due process of law & without any transparent corresponding accountability, is not harmless error & violated Marino's substantial rights & Due Process and FOIA/PA congressional intent to pierce the veil of Administrative Secrecy and Open Agency action to the light of public scrutiny, Dep't of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173, 112 S.ct. 541, 116 L.Fd.2d 526 (1991) In Violations of Title 5 U.S.C.§§552 & 552a, Fifth Amendment's Due Process & Access to the Courts & First Amendment's Freedom of Speech; : [2] Ground Two : The District Court, Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit committed reversible legal error by failing to compel ‘the ‘ Dep't of Justice & its components to comply with its statutory congressional intent of the FOIA/PA Act's intent . was enacted to facilitate public access to Government documents in which Marino pointed to specific documents that are in the Public Domain & Public Record and that Marino pointed to specific information in the Public Domain that is identical to the being withheld, and that the Appellee(s) failed to comply; violated Statutory Law Title 5 U.S.C.§§552 & 552a [3] Ground Three The District Court & Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit committed reversible legal error by failing to compel the Defendant Agencies: Dep't of Jusitice, FBI, EOUSA's, USAO/D.Mass/ OIP/to perform corrective action under the Privacy Act Title 5 U.S.C. §552a(d)(1)-(3). The Privacy Act ensures that an individual (Marino) — can access his records and request amendment of those records to ; correct any inaccuracies. A civil action is available to correct an (VERDICT FORM DOCUMENT: 1079, via: 97-cr-40009-NMG. (D.Mass)) Inaccurate record that an agency supra) has not complied. 5 See Marino v. USAO/D.Mass, et al., (District of Columbia) “consolidated with" Marino v. Dep't of Justice, et al., 12-cv-865-RMC. (D.C.2012); Marino v. Dep't of Justice, et al., USCA'S #16-5280 (D.C.Cir.2016); Records are in the Public Domain, Marino pointed to specific records identical what he requests to be corrected, see Exhibit: 3, violated FOTA/PA Statutes, see supra; 2 . ; aA “ee [4] Ground Four : ; The Appeals Court District of Columbia three judge panel:é. : ll judge panel ‘sitting En Banc, committed reversible legal error by failing to review newly filed Declaration of Susanne Husted, dated: January 19th, 2018, stated in Exhibits: 7 5-9, a Chronological Order of her FOIA/PA Search, which no where ; in her searching did she indicate that she searched the 35 Boxes with 2,000-4,000 pages in each box & the 73,000 electronic files that most likely contained the Documents Marino seeks, charging Marino . $8,960.00 FOIA/PA Search fee, allocating 320 search hours at $28.00 per hour charging Marino, the Appeals Court for the District of Columbia per curiam ordered the Defendants/Dep't of Justice to FURTHER ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that within 30 days from the date of this order, appellees inform the court . whether the U.S. Attorney's Office spent 320 hours . : searching their records, as was estimated in the fee letter to Appellant dated November 20, 2012. If fewer than 320 hours were spent, Appellee(s) are directed to show cause why any overpayment should not be reimbursed to Appellant. See 5 U.S.C.§552(a)(4)(A) (iv). : The above Per Curiam Order by USCA/D.C.Circuit generated the . Declaration of Husted, supra Showing that The search was not only inadeqate but their previous Declaration were not in good faith requires reversal, as it denies Marino's access to specifically pointed to documents that is identical to which Marino seeks & th