Attorneys

United States Attorneys Bulletin

Published by

Executive Office for United States Attorneys Washington D.C

For the use of all U.S Department.of Justice Attorneys

VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CLEARINGHOUSE 359

POINTS TO REMEMBER Coordination of Departments Response to Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules 361 Increase in Admission Fee to the Supreme Court Bar 361 Political Activities of United States Attorneys Assistant U.S Attorneys and Federal Employees in United States Attorneys Offices 363

CASENOTES Civil Division FOIA D.C Circuit Finds That Under Certain Circumstances the Release of Names of Alleged Recipients of Illegal Campaign Contributions Nay be Required Common Cause National Archives and Records Service 369

Jurisdiction Fourth Circuit Dismisses Petition for Review Under Public Safety Officers Benefit Act Because of Lack of Jurisdiction Lankford LEAA 370

Social Security First Circuit Holds HEWs Deeming Regulations Under the Supplemental Security Income Program Constitutional Valid Exercise of the Procedural Requirements of the APA Kollett Harris 370

Ripeness DC Circuit Dismisses Petition for Review Brought by Broadcasters Association Challenging Interlocutory Decision Of Copyright Royalty Tribunal National Association of Broadcasters Copyright Royalty Tribunal 371 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

Page

Standing Tenth Circuit Holds that NCAA Lacks Standing in its Own Right to Challenge Title IX Regulations but Remands for Factual Determination of Question of Representational Standing National Collegiate Athletic Association Harris 372

FOIA Fifth Circuit Concludes that the Privacy Act is an Exemption Statute Within the Meaning of FOIA Painter FBI 373

Reverse FOIA Sixth Circuit Upholds Validity of HEW Regulation Providing for Public Disclosure of Medicare Providers Cost Reports Parkridge Hospital Calif ano 373

SELECTED CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES 375

APPENDIX FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE This page should be placed on permanent file by Rule in each United States Attorneys office library 383

Citations for the slip opinions are available on FTS 7247184

ADDENDUM ATTORNEYS MANUALBLUE SHEETS U.S ATTORNEYS MANUALTRANSMITTALS 393 359 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S ATTORNEYS William Tyson Acting Director

CLEARINGHOUSE

CONTINUING POWER OF TRIAL SUBPOENAS

On the January 23 1980 United States Marshals Service issued teletype to all Marshals concerning the question of reissuing subpoenas in cases where subpoenas were initially served and the case later postponed Since the reissuance of subpoenas to persons already served can create substantial for the United expense States Marshals Service in manpower and mileage costs that agency explored the legality of continuing subpoena The United States Marshals Service determined that existing case law supports the proposition that once the subpoena has been served on an individual for specific trial the has date subpoena continuing power over that person if the trial date is subsequently changed U.S Snyder 413 F2d 288 1969 cert denied 396 U.S 907 1969 Furthermore they believe the only additional requirement is for the Government to give notification of the date change to the subpoenaed person

The EOUSA believes that the United States Marshals Service position is sound it is Therefore suggested that if you have not already done so you may wish to contact the United States Marshals Office and Chief Judge in your districts respective to explore the possibility of formulating an appropriate to procedure facilitate the use of continuing subpoena The United States for the Attorney Western District of Wisconsin has discussed this problem with the in his judges district They have agreed to enter the following order when trial to another date adjourning and you may find it adaptable in your dis trict

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT

Trial of the above matter is adjourned from date to date

All issued in subpoenas the above matter requiring the appearance of witnesses or production of documents or both on date are adjourned to date and the attorney for the party responsible for the subpoena is authorized to notify the witness subpoenaed of the adjourned date of the sub poena

You may also wish to add appropriate language to the subpoena Criminal Form No 20 The subpoena is issued upon application of the United States and remains in effect until final disposition of the case or until you are excused from further attendance by the Court 361 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S ATTORNEYS William Tyson Acting Director

POINTS TO REMEMBER

Coordination of Departments Response to Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules

The Attorney General has recently created systematic procedures to insure timely and adequate Departmentwide participation in considering proposed amendments to the various Federal Rules of Procedure

Certain offices have been designated as coordinating agencies Criminal Division criminal rules Office for Improvements in the Administration of Justice civil and appellate rules and the Executive Office for United States Trustees bankruptcy rules and each office will be responsible for establish ing interdepartmental committees These committees will consist of represen tatives from the affected litigating divisions the EOUSA OIAJ and the Office of the Solicitor General Their responsibility will be to circulate the proposed amendments to the interested units within the Department and to receive and consider responsive comments The EOUSA will refer all proposed rule changes to the Attorney Generals Advisory Committee for consideration and comment

The interdepartmental committees will then prepare proposed Departmental responses for submission to and approval by the Attorney General before the Departments formal response is transmitted to the Judicial Conferences standing committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure

Executive Office

Increase In Admission Fee to the Supreme Court Bar

announced to the On May 14 1980 Wade McCree Jr Solicitor General Heads of Offices Boards Divisions and Bureaus an increase in the admission of the Court fee to the Supreme Court Bar Under amended Rule 52d Supreme effective June 30 the fee for admission to the Bar of the Court will increase three or from $25 to $100 You may wish to advise eligible attorneys admitted date of more years in the event they wish to be admitted before the effective the increase

Executive Office 363 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11 ______Memorandum

5itical ctivitles of United States Attorneys Assistant U.S Attorneys and Federal ioyces in United States Attorneys Offices MAY 1980

U.S Attorneys Offices Persxinel Lt.wiuiazi Tysai Acting Director F.yii1-4ve Office far U.S Attorneys

This ranin regarding restti ai political activities has prepared for the general guidance cPf U.S Attorneys offices azployees Assistant U.S Attorneys United States Attorneys Special Assistant U.S Attorneys tanporary and part-tine zployees

The guidance offered is of general natwe for the above classes of an1oyces Iever because of the sensitive natme of the respcrtsibilities of the Departhent of Justice and United States Attorneys offices in adainistering the federal systeni of justice as well as the zd.que relaticrship betveen the Iparthart of Justice and the political systan all United States Attorneys Assistant U.S Attorneys arid Special Assistant U.S Attorneys should err on the side of eLj servad.an in resolving any questhxiable political activities All special qnestions sliuld be discussed with the Acting Director or 1iuty Director of the Fve Office prior to anldng ci.it for or actually participating in or attending any political flEeting event or other political activity

In all cases care should be taken to avoid even the appearance of iixpropriety or the public ispression that the U.S Attorneys office has an associaticn with mcH or political oi4

The specific questicms iich saz of yon aitted to the Exew Office have bean referred to the Office of Special Cczisel of the Prit Protection Review Board You will be provided with anss than they becor available In addition the questions aid aiars wiil be pthlished at USAM 1-4.000 entitled Standards of Cii4wt In GeneraL

ContriUcms by tuHve branch nployees to certa1 political to candidates and organizaticris are prohibited by the recant ient the Federal Election Canpai Act As discussed be1z the ciHve Branch is interpreting the azarllEnt in the st ccmservatiw fashion All ep.oyees in the executive branch are best advised to avoid itrihiting to President Carters canpaign even throi.h Carter-idale Canpaign Ctmittee pending final action on the proposed ient of the Paderal E1ction Caiiaign Act discussed belw

flie Hatch Act coverage ends to any person aiplayed In an cutive agency U.S.C 7324d

As point of infomtien U.S Attorneys and Assistant U.S Attorneys serve in the eccepted service rt In the caxpetitive service U.S.C 2103 C.F.R 213.3102 However the sai restrictions on political activities are applied to both the uxzpetitive aid cepted services C.F.R 733.201 Distinguishing the services in Hatch Act itext iuld only be relevant in procedural sense arid t1i only In the eit of an alleged violation of the Act 364 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO

Basically the Act interdicts ctly active participaticri in political sagerent and political cffliaigns and not expressicis public or private as to public affairs persciialities and nmtters of public interest not an objective of party acti.ct

list petted and prohibited political activities of federal zp.oyees as llas other pertinent regulaticzis relating to political activity can be foud in C.F.R 5733.101 733.204 It partial list of permitted and prohibited activities fol1as the article flse regulaticxis incorporate aist caipletely the case an this subject

Situatiais that arise and are not dealt with in the regulatiais will have to be casidered an case-by-case basis and slxuld involve caisultt-m with the Merit Systam Protectian Boards Office of Special Camsel which has bean dlgted this advisory fctian by the U.S Office of Persannel l4anagaiit OEM

CaittiliHms amy be nade volimtarily by federal offis or a1oyees to political party or orgariizatiai with tain limitatlczis This is interpreted to amen that itributians amy be nmde to an autlxrized individual ca aign arganizatiai ver itrilxiticiis by verrrit esployee delivered either persanally to candidate or amiled directly to candidate shxi.d be avoided These itrilutians are avered by 18 U.s.c 5591 at sai titled Electians and Political Activities as aiended by tT Pral Electicn Caxpai Act kanents of 1979 P.L 96-187 H.R 5010 January 1980 Disregarding this advice amy not anly violate the Hatch Act hit could result in prosecutian i.iider 18 U.s.c 5603 as ided by P.L 96-187 flu recant to 18 U.S.C 5603 entitled Making Political Ccxitrthitians prohibits all officers end ax1oyees of the United States and its departments and agencies fran nmldng ibiticris as defined in 53018 of the Federal Electian Caipai Act of 1971 to any other such officer esployee or persan Senator or Representative of Ccmgress if the recipient azployer or ploying authirity of the trihitor

The servatiw interpretatian given to this by the Ipartnent of Justice Office of Legal Qxwisel is that the axployer or ap1oylng aut1rity of an cecutive Branch ccxitrihitor frwl-is inter ella the i.nctrijant President end Vice President end their canpaign caimittees as 11 as the aiployee-ccitributar azployers in the U.S Attorney rff

The nri penalty for violaticm of 18 U.s.c 5603 is $5000 fine and tbree years iixprisaiimnt

f.nther iit limiting the ne.Q 18 U.s.c 5603 by 1ivi1ng erect-ve branch exployee3 fran this prohibitian has bean passed by tim House R.R 6702 an March 10 1980 and the issue will scan be 1pcIed in the Senate Such amastme has the support of the tqipwL late Senators and the Presidents full support as stated in his sidng statt for the original it an February 1980 You will be inamdiately notified if the bill is enacted

Solicitaticms of pulitical caitributions as defined by Sectian 3018 of the Federal Electian Caxpaign Act of 1971 by any offi or aiployee of the United States fran any other such officer aiployee or persan is still prohibited subject to $5000 fine and tbree years inpriscut izider nectiou 18 U.S.C 5602 Solicitatian of Political Ccntrilxiticzis as ded by P.L 96-187

Dollar xit liniitaticos an crritributious by an individual to political organizatians or ccxmiittees are foxid at U.S.C 5441a Generally this statute limits individual ccntributians to $1000 per year per candidate or his fher camiittee $20000 per year to political caiinittee established by naticrial political party which is not ccmnittee for particular candidate and $5000 per year to any other political ccrmittee In no case shall an individual nuke ccrittthitious aggregating anre then $25000 in any calendar year You sild read U.S.C 441a if you are cansidering caitrilxitirig siificent its to political caxpaign or organizatian 365 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

Sectian 441a of U.S.C appLies to rthitious aede to federal office-seekers and naticoal cttees It is advisable for ip1oyees to check applicable state statutes in their respective districts before maldng political ccmtritxiticms to candidates for state and local office

Vin1RH of Hatch Act provisicms by eiloyees in the cxpetitive service could result in rval and the mininun panalty is suspansian witirut far 30 pay days xployees in the ercepted service any also be ned the adniw panalty is 30 days suspansian witbout pay

Special rules apply to residants of certain aiities with large ntiers of federal exloyees iith are listed in C.F.R 1733.124 Referance to these slxuld reguiatians ansvar anst questiczs about these rules If anre informatian is desired the Harit Syst Protectiai Bda Office of Special Czisel sbould be sulted

If have you any questians regarding political activity you sheuld obtain an ans before angagirig in the activity since igrxrance of the of the prvisians law will rt etaise you fri paialties for violsarian

sisply stated guide for federal in esployees aigagfn political activity can be fzd in 39 Op Atty Can 446 1940 Gaerally at least it is the duty of perss io xrceivably any within the of inhibitixris in statutes such as the Hatch Act so to shape their iduct as to avoid raising qix.stians of the applicability to than of the statutory panalties While wzhat dated the advice is sczid

PAIAL LIST PUTl AlD PUBI Acrrvrrms

What lcyees Hay

These are permissible activities tvder the Harh

Yanhave the right to register to vote as you cheose in electi Political activity restrictices du tt relieve federal iployees of their cbligatian as citizans to ifrnm tIelves of the issues and to register and vote xp1oyees are ancouraged to vote by being granted leave izider certain circrEtani-g to register or vote

You have the right to ress opthiczzs as an individual privately and publicly an all political subjects and 1anti darc.R as 1ag as you it take active part in partisan political or pard.san political canpaigns

You any ar political badge or hittan or display political sticker an yt private aiitrrrbile subject to wrk-rplarpd 1ind.iaHrr

You amy rake voltmtary canpaigu cczitributiz to political party or organizaticn subject to the restrictiais of 18 U.S.C 1603 as axided stra

You any participate in tipartisan electian either as candidate or in support of or in oppositiai to candidate and you nay if elected serve in the office if such service will not couflict or interfere with y.w federal

You nay serve as an electian clerk or judge or in 4m 1a positian to perform ripartisai iiH as prescribed by state or local law

You any be poliu1ra1 ly active in mecticzi with an issue that is not specifically idantifted with political party such as axistituticiial aiit referandjn approval of aziicipal ordinance or 4m41nr issue 366

VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

You any be er of political party or other political and orgaruzatiou attend anetings and te oc issues hit you any not take an active part in aniaging the organizatiLE

You lray attend political erzventiou rally fid-raising fctiou or ot political gatling hit you may not take an active Part in ccxiducting or 1ruging such gathexthgs

You any sig petiticris lwl.xthg rrat1ng petitiocs You may not initiate then or canvass for signatures if they are nciutharing petitious for candidates in partisan elect1s

You any petitiai Qrigress or any Per of Qrgress such as as by writing to ym Rreaentathie and Senators to say you think they s1uld vote ci particilar iss

1iat zplayees

The general prohibiticis ci federal axployees are that they may not use their official anthirity or 1nfliance to interfere with or affect the result of an electicii and that they may not take an active part in partisan political uenagecant or in partisan political canpaigns flse are of the prohibited activities

You may not be candidate for xnatixi or electici to Hrwt1 or state office You any ixtder saie circzstances for local office as deseribed in the sectici That iployees 1k antiáin Certain Crmiiviities

You any not bccre partisan rtiidat for dnarirri or electhi to public office

You amy not caipaig far or gf-nst political party or eR4irbr In an electici for public office or political party off4e

You any not serve as an pfRr of political party anii of iHrwu1 state or local ttce of political party an offfrr or anther of ttce of partisan political cith or be for any of these positicis

You any not participate in the organizing or reorganizing of political party orgRrim4rri or club

You any not solicit receive collect handle dishnse or az1t far assestts trihiticis or other fends for partisan political p.npose or in ziectici with partisan electica or make political cuitrlbuticxi in federal building or to saze ot eskyee

You for otherwise may not sell tickets or actively praixte such activities as political dirriers

You amy not rk at the polls ci behalf of partisan candidate or political parry by acting as checker thallener or tcher or in sfniiThr partisan positioc

You may not distribute caign material

You may not serve as delegate alternate or puxy to political parry iventici 367 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

You UE not address ivitit rally tniv.i or similar gathering of political party in part of or in oppositlai to candidate for piblic office or political party office or partisan political questian

You not andarse or pose candidate or partisan ei.ectiou throh political advertist broadcast carpaign literattue or 4n4 uterial

You iray not use rmvbiI.e to drive ters to the poiis behalf of political party or d4iP in partisan elect1

Executive Office 369 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

CIVIL DIVISION Assistant Attorney General Alice Daniel

Common Cause National Archives and Records Service No 79 1637 D.C Cir April 30 1980 DJ 145123141

FOIA D.C CIRCUIT FINDS THAT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THE RELEASE OF NAMES OF ALLEGED RECIPIENTS OF ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS MAY BE REQUIRED

Common Cause requested the names of candidates for federal office to whom nineteen named corporations were alleged to have made unlawful campaign contributions during the period 1968 1973 The names of these candidates were contained in records compiled by the Watergate Special Prosecution Force and later placed in the possession of the National Archives and Reords Service NAPS Certain information was released but the re mainder was withheld under eernption 7c on the ground that release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy None of the alleged recipients had been prosecuted nor because of the statute of limitations would they ever be Based on the affidavit of the Special Prosecutor which stated that the information in the WSPF/NARS was not substantial enough to support prosecution of the alleged recipients and that therefore release would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded It stated that summary judgment was inappropriate because the reliability of the records was at issue The court seemed to say that the dis trict court should review the records with respect to each alleged recipient and determine the probable or perhaps the possible guilt of each recipient If probable or possible guilt is found the district court would then order release

We are considering filing petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc first because the Courts directions to the district court are unclear and second because the Courts analysis is flawed The court totally failed to conduct proper 7.c analysis having completely failed to consider and then to balance the privacy and public interests involved Had it done so we believe the Court would have found no current public interest in the information requested

Attorney Howard Scher Civil Division FTS 6335055 370 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

Lankford LEAA No 79-1158 4th Cir April 14 1980 DJ 145- 123981

JURISDICTION FOURTH CIRCUIT DISMISSES PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS BENEFIT ACT BECAUSE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION

The Public Safety Off icérs Benefit PSOB Act provides for payment of $50000 benefit to designated survivors of peace officer who dies as proximate result of personal injury sustained in the line of duty Claimant beneficiary sought review of the final administrative denial of her claim

The Fourth Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the final agency determination because the PSOB Act did not expressly provide for judicial review in the Courts of Appeals The court rejected the argument that the review provi sion of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 42 U.S.C 3759a which provides that an unsuccessful applicant or grantee may petition the Court of Appeals for review was meant to apply to claimants under the PSOB Act

Attorney Burton Fretz formerly of Civil Division

Kollett Harris Nos 791453 791455 1st Cir April 18 1980 DJ 1816616

SOCIAL SECURITY FIRST CIRCUIT HOLDS HEWS DEEMING REGULATIONS UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME PROGRAM CONSTITUTIONAL VALID EXERCISE OF THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE APA

Under the Supplemental Security Income Program SSI dis falls abled children are eligible for benefits if their income below certain levels 42 U.S.C 1382cf provides that childs income is deemed to include the income of parents and/ or not or stepparents living in .the same household whether available to such individual except to the extent determined by circumstances the Secretary to be inequitable under the

This provision was implemented by the Secretary by general which general re9ulations found at 20 C.F.R 416.1185 provide exclusions from parental income for living and work expenses or but make no allowance for individual family availability first local child support laws The regulations were promul comment in 1974 The gated without opportunity for public allowances were then substantially liberalized after public 371 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11 comment in 1977 The district court held both sets of regula tions arbitrary and capricious for failure to consider relevant factors and the 1974 regulations procedurally invalid under U.S.C 553 The district court was influenced by concern that the statute as implemented without allowance for the fact that stepparental income would not be actually available under state law might be unconstitutional

The First Circuit largely reversed The statute presented no constitutional difficulty Congress could permissibly conclude that no general exception from deeming should be made where the source of family support is stepparent rather than natural parent Both sets of regulations moreover were sub stantively valid HEW does not have to enumerate- every con ceivable factor that entered the decisionmaking process

However the 1974 regulations were held invalid for failure to allow for noticeandcomment in advance of promulgation The Court found that HEW did not state sufficient good cause for abrogating this process nor did such cause exist given the 14 months between the enactment of the statute and its effective date

But the Court also vacated the district courts remedy of automatically retroactively applying the more generous 1977 regu lations The question of remedy has been remanded for deter mination of whether the change was stimulated by the comments later received pointing to an error or was influenced by other factors Also the district court is to balance any recovery against national economic and regulatory impact

Attorney Bruce Forrest Civil Division FTS 6333445

National Association of Broadcasters Copyright Royalty Tribunal No 801076 D.C Cir.April 211980 DJ 233743

RIPENESS D.C CIRCUIT DISMISSES PETITION FOR REVIEW BROUGHT BY BROADCASTERS ASSOCI ATION CHALLENGING INTERLOCUTORY DEC ISION OF COPYRIGHT ROYALTY TRIBUNAL

Currently pending before the Copyright Royalty Tribunal is the Tribunals very first royalty distribution proceeding The Tribunal is charged by statute with the task of distributing moneys paid by various cable television operators into fund to pay the royalty fees of programming transmitted on cable T.V Various claimants of the royalties are participating in the Tribunal proceedings An association of broadcasting companies National Association of Broadcasters was dissatisfied with the 372 NO 11 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980

and filed an Tribunals disposition of several legal questions immediate petition for review even though proceedings were Circuit continuing before the Tribunal On our motion the D.C not This has just dismissed the petition for review as ripe decision which was rendered without opinion should aid the Tribunal in restraining future attempts to interrupt agency proceedings through premature court challenges

Attorney John Cordes Civil Division FTS 6333426

National bl1egiate Athletic Association Harris No 78-1632 10th Cir April 17 1980 DJ 14516896

STANDING TENTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT NCAA LACKS STANDING IN ITS OWN RIGHT TO CHALLENGE TITLE IX REGULATIONS BUT REMANDS FOR FACTUAL DETERMINATION OF QUESTION OF REPRESENTATIONAL STANDING

The National Collegiate Athletic Association brought this action in an effort to obtain preenforcement review of the regulations implementing Title IX of the Education its Amendments of 1972 The NCAA asserted standing both in own right and as the representative of its member colleges However the National Education Association and the Associ ation of Intercollegiate Athletics for Women intervened as the interests parties defendant claiming that they represent of American colleges and universities in combating discrimina tion more accurately than the NCAA Faced with this unusual situation the district court granted our motion to dismiss for our want of standing On appeal the Tenth Circuit accepted its to argument that the NCAA has no standing in own right the district challenge the regulations However it held that court should not have granted motion to dismiss on the issue enter of representational standing Rather it should have tained motions for summary judgment wherein each association it established by affidavit which colleges and universities it actually represents Only if the NCAA can show that repre at sents majority of its members and only if it can produce be deemed to have least one college to join in its suit will it representational standing

Attorney Linda Cole Civil Division FTS 6333525 373 NO 11 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 145 Painter FBI No 792570 5th dr April 18 19801 DJ 123641

FOIA FIFTH CIRCUIT CONCLUDES THAT THE PRIVACY ACT IS AN EXEMPTION STATUTE WITHIN THE MEANING OF FOIA

Painter an exFBI Agent sued under the FOIA to obtain to his dis documents from his files to be used in challenge to missal from the FBI The FBI following established policy which examine both the Privacy Act and the FOIA to determine the Act and permits the broadest disclosure examined Privacy would determined that exemption confidential sources authorize withholding of the requested information The FBI determined that was narrower exemption than FOIAs 7D exemption

not The district court found that the Privacy Act was the FOIA Exemption statute Then it concluded that requested asserted documents would have to be released because the FBI had no other applicable FOIA exemption for the requested material The FBI then asserted the applicability of FOIA exemption 7D with and argued alternatively that as result of its policy it asserted the respect to FOIA/Privacy Act requests only The district exemption because subsumed 7D court rejected these arguments

avoided On appeal we limited our brief to the latter and the the 5-as-exemption3- statute argument Nevertheless Fifth Circuit without benefit of oral argument followed the and exemption path The decision results in policy practical on remand problems Therefore we will move this week for modification of the decision

Attorney Howard Scher Civil Division FTS 6335055

Parkridge Hospital v.Califano No 77-1576 6th Cir April 29 1980 DJ 145161157

REVERSE FOIA SIXTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS VALIDITY OF HEW REGULATION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF MEDICARE PROVIDERS COST REPORTS

HEW notified Parkridge In response to an FOIA request filed by Hospital that it would release the annual cost report Medicare Parkridge to seure reimbursement under the program such Parkridge then brought this reverse FOIA suit to enjoin disclosure and argued that the report was confidential 374 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11 financial information within Exemption that disclosure would violate the Trade Secrets Act 18 U.s.c 1905 and that HEWs regulation authorizing such disclosure was invalid as contrary to statute and arbitrary and capricious The district court granted the requested relief and we appealed

The Sixth circuit reversed accepting our arguments that the regulation is valid and that disclosure is not barred by the FOIA or the Trade Secrets Act The court emphasized that Medi are providers receive large sums of public money so that it is reasonable for HEW to provide disclosure of their cost reports to facilitate public accountability This decision is in accord with those of the other two circuits the Second and the Fifth which have also sustained HEWs regulation The well written opinion by Chief Judge Edwards should help us in similar cases pending in the District of Columbia and Fourth circuits

Attorney Anthony Steinmeyer Civil Division FTS 6333355 375 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 No 11

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Assistant Attorney General Alan Parker

SELECTED CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

APRIL 29 MAY 13 1980

DOJ Authorization Hearings in the Senate concluded on General April 30 1980 with the appearance of Deputy Attorney Renfrew and Associate Attorney General Shenefield Senator Biden chaired Senators Baucus and DeConcini attended for short interests periods to inquire as to matters within each of their The hearing went very well

The authorization bill was scheduled for consideration by the Committee in executive session on May 1980 However because Senator Hatch was going to object the bill has been put do over for at least one more week Senator Hatchs objections not relate to the provisions of 2377 but rather to his continuing demand that Public Integrity Chief Tom Henderson cases appear as witness at hearings on snsitive political handled by the public interity section

Fair Housing The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution has tentatively scheduled markup on 506 the this fair housing amendments for May 13 An April 30 markup on matter was postponed

rule for On May 1980 the House Rule Cormnittee granted consideration of the Fair Housing Amendments The terms are an rule with two hours of general debate Floor action is not open 1980 yet scheduled but is likely to be on Wednesday May 14

Attorney Fees On May Alice Daniel Assistant Attorney General Civil Division testified before the House Small Business Subcommittee on SBA and SBIC Authority and General Small Business Problems The hearings involved H.R 6429 the Small Business Equal Access to Justice Act On behalf of the Administration Ms Daniel strongly opposed H.R 6429 and endorsed less sweeping alternative drafted in the Department

The Subcommittee reported the bill by voice vote on May 1980 Full committee markup is scheduled for May 13 1980

Efforts are expected which would attach 265 bill similar to H.R 6429 which has already passed the Senate to the Departments Authorization bill in the Senate and to the regulatory reform bill in the House The Department opposes both of these moves 376 VOL 28 MPY 23 1980 No 11

Institutions On April 24 the Senate began consideration of the Conference Report on H.R 10 the institutions bill As they did at the time of the Senates original deliberations on this bill Senators Thurmond Danforth Exon and Boren commenced filibuster The first cloture vote held on April 28 failed on vote of 44 to 39 second cloture vote held on April 29 failed on vote of 56 to 34 third vote on April 30 failed by vote of 53 to 35 Cloture was finally invoked on the fourth attempt on April 29 1980 by vote of 60-34 On May 1980 the Senate adopted the conference report Adoption by the House is expected shortly

Internal Audit On April 24 Kevin Rooney Justice Manage ment Division Mike Shaheen Office of Professional Responsibility Frank Cihiar Office for Improvements in the Administration of Justice and Glenn Pomxnerening Internal Audit Staff testified at oversight hearings before Representative Preys subcommittee of Government Operations The effectiveness of the Internal Audit Staff and the Office of Professional Responsibility was explored as was the reorganization of JMD Rather loaded questions were posed in preparation for anticipated legislation which would mandate and expand OPR and/or lAS The report prepared by OIAJ concerning the establishment of Inspector General-type functions within DOJ was not discussed in detail

Bankruptcy Act Technical Amendments Bill Richard Levine Director Executive Office of United States Trustees testified before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights concerning 658 Technical Amendments to the new Bankruptcy Act Levine articulated the Departments opposition to pro posed change in Section 1103b of the Act The proposal would permit person other than an attorney or accountant to represent individual creditors and creditors committee simultaneously Levine stressed that one of the major purposes of the Act was to alleviate conflict of interests The necessity to avoid conflicts extends to nonattorneys and non accountants Chairman Edwards reaction appeared favorable

The Subcommittee is scheduled to continue hearings on May 15 1980

Organized Crime The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on Organized Crime and the Use of Violence began hearings the week of April 29 1980 on Organized Crime On April 28 1980 FBI Director William Webster Deputy Assistant Attorney General Irv Nathan who replaced the ill Philip Heymann and DEA Administrator Peter Bensinger all testified concerning the progress made and difficulties encountered by their respective Departments in their efforts to fight organized crime On April 29 1980 Sean McWeeney Special AgentSection Chief FBI headquarters and James Nelson Unit Chief FBI 377 VOL 28 NPJY 23 1980 No 11

about crime Headquarters testified in greater detail organized activities and groups that comprise organized crime LaCosa Nostra Chinese Mafia Mexican Mafia Bikers Israeli Mafia Dixie Mafia etc The agents complained that FOIA and privacy in requirments of the Tax Reform Bill of 1976 were handicaps pursuing the leaders of organized crime However the biggest of those impediment was the light sentences and early parole convicted On April 30 1980 Michael Depeo Strike Force Chief Kansas City and William Ouseley FBI Kansas City testified about their experiences

its first round On May 1980 the Subcommittee concluded of hearings The May hearing focused on ruthless band of Coluinbian Smugglers who operate in the Miami Florida area second round of hearings is scheduled for June

Senator Nunn who chairs this Subcommittee hopes these hearings will have an impact similar to that of the Valachi be hearings held in the early 1960s He is hopeful there will renewed public interest in stopping organized crime which is now heavily involved in legitimate businesses

7040 before Corporate Criminal Liability Mark-up on H.R the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime which would amend title 18 of the U.S Code to impose penalties with respect to certain nondisclosure by business entities as dangerous products was scheduled for the week of May 12 1980 After receiving official DOJ comment on H.R 7040 the Subcommittee hopes to have DOJ testify on the day of mark-up

Continuing Pay Bill On April 30 1980 the House Post Office and Civil Service Subcommittee on Compensation and Employee Benefits held hearings on H.R 5995 the Continuing Pay bill Larry Siinms OLC and Peter Shane OLC testified for DOJ and reiterated what was contained in the Attorney General opinion that without continuing resolution or Congressional appropriation Federal agencies would have to terminate function ing as proscribed by the Anti-Deficiency Act 1870 when their appropriated funds run out The Department believes that H.R 5995 will not solve the problem since it only continues pay during times when appropriations are delayed and does not provide for operational funds Therefore the employees can get FTC paid but cannot perform any work Christian White from the testified that his agency was going to abide by the Attorney Generals opinion and was preparing for termination at 1200 midnight DOJ and FTC had agreed that approximately two or three weeks would be necessary to terminate FTC functions in the event appropriated funds were not forthcoming

Class Action On May 1980 Assistant Attorney General Maurice Rosenberg testified before the House Committee on Small 378 VOL 28 M1Y 23 1980 No 11

Business concerning DOJ views on H.R 5103 the Small Business Judicial Access Act of 1979

On 1980 the May Subcommittee problems marked up and approved the bill with only few minor changes Chairman Neal Smith believes this could be the most important bill to pass Congress this year The bill was jointly referred to the Judiciary and Small Business Committees To date the Judiciary Committee has not taken action on the bill

U.S Postal Service Subject to Certain Provisions of OSHA On May 1980 Basil Whiting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Energy Nuclear Proliferation and Federal Services on behalf of the Administra tionsapprovalof H.R 826 2558 The proposed legislation which makes the Postal Service subject to provisions of OSHA will limit the Justice Departments litigating authority If enacted the legislation will put the Department in conflict of interest posture i.e having to prosecute and defend the Postal Service Due to this conflict the Department will have to allow the Postal Service to defend itself the bill specifically takes litigating authority away from Justice Mark-up on 2558 similar to H.R 926 except it allows for criminal sanctions against the employer as well as the employees will be on May 1980 Even though Labor testified in favor of criminal sanctions against employees only the Committee appears inclined to include penalties against the employer the Postal Service Therefore the Justice Department may be in position someday to call for Grand Jury to indict another Executive Agency the Postal Service including the Postmaster General and the Board

Customs Courts Act The Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law of the House Judiciary Committee scheduled markup On H.R 6394 Customs Court Act on May 1980 was cancelled It has been rescheduled for May 14 1980

Railway Deregulation The House Commerce Committee was scheduled to markup H.R 7235 Congressman Florios bill on the economic deregulation of the railroad industry on May 1980 However because of the presence of other legislation markup has been rescheduled for May 13 1980

Regulatory Reform House Judiciary Committee began mark-up of H.R 3263 on April 29 but made little progress covering only sections of the bill in section-bysection reading in two days of mark-up Amendments were adopted to limit small business impact of agency regulations Other amendments were considered but final votes were postponed 379

VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 No 11

262 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee with the following amendments

1472 Venue is the DeConcini/Laxalt bill to create presumption that environmental actions filed outside the district which was substantially impacted be transferred to the local district The bill passed with slight weakening amendment by Culver to line 14 or that the impact is substantially national and not local in scope Culver stated that e.g acid rain which affected or states would not be local in scope

This revision of the bill was not supported by DOJ but it appears to be something we can live with

Bumpers Culvers attempt to gut the amendment was defeated resoundly somewhat modified Bumpers sponsored by DeConcini Dole Laxalt Hatch and Hefljn passed unanimously

Legislative Veto Cochrans 2-house veto patterned after Levin/Boren was offered as an amendment to regulatory reform but was defeated without quorum by 2/4 vote The only aye votes were Cochran and Baucus Heflin was concerned with the constitutional problems and expressed interest in an independent regulation review commission

Senate Governmental Affairs passed 1945 the Levin/Boren legislative veto on May by vote of 9-4

Juvenile Justice Authorization 2.441 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee with miiior Bayh amendment including handicapped in the definition section DeConcinis amendment mandating separate facilities for juveniles in temporary detention centers was not included

INS Efficiency Bill On May Senator Simpson objected to Judiciary Committee consideration of the INS efficiency bill 1763 thereby putting the bill over until the next Committee markup session

Jurisdictional Amount in Controversy 2357 bill to eliminate the amoimtin controversy requirement for federal question jurisdiction was not considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee as scheduled on May because Senator Thurinond objected to its consideration Senator Hatch noted that when the bill does come up he will offer an amendment to retain the jurisdic tional amount in controversy requirement in certain consumer controversies 380 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 No 11

Judicial Realignment On May the Senate Judiciary Cormnittee ordered favorably reported 2326 Department originated proposal to place the Federal Correctional Institution at Butner North Carolina entirely within the Eastern District of North Carolina At present the line dividing the Middle and Eastern Districts of North Carolina also divides the Federal Correctional Institution at Butner North Carolina into two segments The Bill would avoid potentially serious problems with respect to criminal prosecutions arid habeas corpus actions

Nominations On May 1980 the Senate confirmed the following nominations

Odell Horton to be U.S District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee

John Nixon to be U.S District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee

Norma Johnson to be U.S District Judge for the District of Columbia

Henry Dogin of New York to be Director of the Office of Justice Assistance Research and Statistics

Homer Broome Jr of California to be Administrator of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

Raymond Acosta to be U.S Attorney for the District of Puerto Rico

John Edwards to be U.S Attorney for the Western District of Virginia

Thomas Delahanty II to be U.S Attorney for the District of Maine

John Martin Jr to be U.S Attorney for the Southern District of New York

James Laffoon to be U.S Marshal for the Southern District of California

John Spurner to be U.S Marshal for the District of Maryland

On April 25 1980 the Senate Judicary Committee concluded hearings on the nominations of Charles Hardy to be U.S District Judge for the District of Arizona and William Canby Jr of Arizona to be U.S Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit 381 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 No 11 after the nominees testified and answered questions in their own behalf

On May 1980 the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded hearings on the nominations of Samuel Ervin III of North Carolina to be U.S Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit Earl Bitt to be U.S District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina Patrick Kelly to be U.S District Judge for the District of Kansas Milton Shadur to be U.S District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois Frank Polozola to be U.S District Judge for the Middle District of Louisiana Clyde Cahill Jr to be U.S District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri George Anderson Jr to be U.S District Judge for the District of South Carolina Walter Rice and Arthur Spiegel each to be U.S District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio and Raul Ramirez to be U.S District Judge for the Eastern District of California after the nominees testified and answered questions in their own behalf

On May 1980 the Senate received the following nominations

Judith Keep to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of California

Marilyn Patel to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of California

Thelton Henderson to be United States District Judge for the Norther District of California

Wallace Tashima to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California

Justin Quackenbush to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington 383 VOL 28 May 23 1980 NO 11

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 18 Place of Prosecution and Trial

After being convicted of crime in the Western District of Kentucky defendant was released on bail pending appeal Upon his conviction being affirmed and certiorari denied defendant was ordered to surrender to the U.S Marshal in Detroit Michigan He failed to do so and upon being apprehended was returned to the Western District of Kentucky where he was indicted for bail jumping The Government appealed the courts dismissal of the indictment on the ground that criminal venue did not lie in the Western District of Kentucky

The central question on appeal was whether within the meaning of Rule 18 the offense was committed in the district which admitted defendant to bail and ordered him to report or in the district where defendant failed to report as ordered The Court rejected defendants argument that the focus of the crime of bail jumping is upon the failure of the bailed defendant to perform legally required act and venue should therefore lie in the district where the act is required to be performed distinguishing this case from Johnston United States 351 U.S 215 220 1956 on which defendant relied which held that where the crime charged is failure to do legally required act the place fixed for its perform ance fixes the situs of the crime Here as the Government pointed out the focus of the crime of bail jumping is upon the effect that the proscribed act has on the power and the dignity of the court which sets bail and not on the physical aspects of the offense Bail jumping is akin to constructive contempt of court so venue was properly laid in the Western District of Kentucky

Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the indictment

United States Michael Lawrence Roche 611 F.2d 1180 6th Cir January 1980 385 VOL.28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

LISTING OF ALL ELUESREETS IN EFFECT

DATE AFFECTS USAN SUBJECT

TITLE

52378 thru Reissuance and Continuation in Effect of ES to U.S.A Manual

Undtd 11.200 Authority of Manual A.G Order 66576

62177 13.100 Assigning Functions to the Associate Attorney General

62177 13.102 Assignment of Responsibility to DAG re INTERPOL

62177 13 105 Reorganize and Redesignate Office of Policy and Planning as Office for Improvements in the Administration of Justice

42277 13.108 Selective Service Pardons

62177 13.113 Redesignate Freedom of Information Appeals Unit as Office of Privacy and Information Appeals

62177 13.301 Director Bureau of Prisons Authority to Promulgate Rules

62177 13.402 U.S Parole Commission to replace U.S Board of Parole

Undtd 15.000 Privacy Act Annual Fed Reg Notice Errata

12578 15.400 Searches of the News Media

81079 15.500 Public Comments by DOJ Emp Reg Invest Indict and Arrests

42877 16.200 Representation of DOJ Attorneys by the Department A.G Order 63377

83077 19.000 Case Processing by Teletype with Social Security Administration

103179 19.000 Procedure for Obtaining Disclosure of Social Security Administration Information in Criminal Proceedings 386

VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

DATE AFFECTS USAN SUBJECT

111679 19.000 Notification to Special Agent in Charge Concerning Illegal or Improper Actions by DEA or Treasury Agents

71478 114.210 Delegation of Authority to Conduct Grand Jury Proceedings TITLE 10377 23.210 Appeals in Tax Case

TITLE Undtd 34.000 Sealing and Expungement of Case Files Under 21 U.S.C 844 TITLE.4 112778 41.200 Responsibilities of the AAG for Civil Division

91578 41.210 Civil Division Reorganization 41.227 41480 41.213 Federal Programs Branch Case Reviews

4179 41.300 Redelegations of authority in Civil 41.313 Division Cases

5578 41.313 Addition of Direct Referral Cases to USAM 41.313

4179 42.110 Redelegation of Authority in Civil 42.140 Division Cases

22278 4-2.320 Memo Containing the USAs Recommen dations for the Compromising or Closing of Claims Beyond his Authority

111378 42.433 Payment of Compromises in Federal Tort Claims Act Suits

81379 43.000 Withholding Taxes on Backpay Judgments

50578 43.210 Payment of Judgments by GAO

60178 43.210 New telephone number for GAO office handling payment of judgments

51479 44.230 Attorneys Fees in EEO Cases

112778 44.240 Attorney fees in FOl and PA suits

4179 44.280 New USAN 44.280 dealing with attorneys fees in Right To Financial Privacy Act suits 387 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

DATE AFFECTS USAM SUBJECT

4179 44.530 Addition to USAM 44.530 costs re coverable from United States

4179 44.810 Interest recoverable by the Govt

4179 45.229 New USAM 45.229 dealing with limita tions in Right To Financial Privacy Act suits

21580 45.530 540 FOIA and Privacy Act Matters 550

4179 45.921 Sovereign immunity

4179 45.924 Sovereign immunity

92479 49 200 McNamara0Hara Service Contract Act cases

92479 49.700 WaishHealy Act cases

4179 411.210 Revision of USAM 411.210 Copyright Infringement Actions

4179 411.850 New USAM 411.850 discussing Right To Financial Privacy Act litigation

42180 411.860 FEGLI litigation

6479 412.250 Priority of Liens 2410 cases 412 251

4780 412.250 Priority of Liens 2420 cases .251 .252

52278 412 270 Addition to USAM 412.270

41679 413.230 New USAM 413.230 discussing revised HEW regulations governing Social Security Act disability benefits

112778 413.335 News discussing Energy Cases

7-3079 413.350 Review of Government Personnel Cases under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978

4179 413.361 Handling of suits against Govt Employees 388 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

DATE AFFECTS USAN SUBJECT

62579 415.000 Subjects Treated in Civil Division Practice Manual

TITLE 91478 51.110 Litigation Responsibility of the Land Natural Resources Division 91478 51.302 Signing of Pleadings by AAG

9778 51.310 Authority of U.S Attorneys to Initiate Actions Without Prior Authorization to Initiate Action

91478 51.321 Requirement for Authorization to Initiate Action

1379 51.325 Case Weighting System Case Priority 51.326 System Procedures

9778 51.620 Settlement Authority of Officers within the Land and Natural Resources Division

9778 51.630 Settlement Authority of U.S Attorneys

91478 52 130 Statutes administered by Pollution Control Section

111379 52.130 Naming of State in Clear Water Act Enforcements Actions Against Munipalities

90677 52.310a Representation ofthe Environmental and Protection Agency 52.312

91478 52.312 Cooperation and Coordination with Environmental Protection Agency

91478 52.321 Requirement for Authorization to Initiate Action

91478 53.321 Requirement for Authorization To Initiate Action

90677 53.321 Category Matters and Category 53.322 MattersLand Acquisition Cases

91478 54.321 Requirement for Authorization to Initiate Action 389 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

DATE AFFECTS USAN SUBJECT

91478 55.320 Requirement for Authorization to Initiate Action 91478 57.120 Statutes Administered by the General Litigation Section

91478 57.314 Cooperation and Coordination with the Council on Environmental Quality

91478 57.321 Requirement for Authorization to Inititate Action

91478 58.311 Cooperation and Coordination with the Council on Environmental Quality

TITLE 42280 63.630 Responsibilities of United States Attorney of Receipt of Complaint

TITLE 62177 72.000 Part 25Recommendations to President on Civil Aeronautic Board Decisions Procedures for Receiving Comments by Private Parties

TITLE 62177 82.000 Part 55Implemenation of Provisions of Voting Rights Act re Language Minority Groups interpretive guidelines

62177 82.000 Part 42Coordination of Enforcement of Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs

101877 82.220 Suits Against the Secretary of Commerce Challenging the 10% Minority Business SetAside of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977 P.L 9528 May 13 1977

Undtd 1079 83.130 Enforcement of Civil Rights Criminal StatutesClarification of Authori zation for Arrests Pursuant to Com plaint

TITLE

71179 91.000 Criminal DivistonReorganization 390

VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

DATE AFFECTS USAN SUBJECT

Undtd 380 91.103 Description of Public Integrity Section

31480 91.103 Criminal Division Reorganization

111379 91.160 Requests for Grand Jury Authorization Letters for Division Attorneys

Undtd 91.215 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 15 U.S.C 78mb23 15 U.S.C 78dd1 and 15 U.S.C 78dd2

41480 91.403 Criminal Division Reorganization .404 .410

41680 91.502 Criminal Division Brief/Memo Bank

62279 92.000 Cancellation of Outstanding Memorandum

51179 92.025 Trade Secrets ActProsecution Under 18 U.s.c 1905

12580 92.145 Interstate Agreement on Detainers

41679 92 168 State and Territorial Prisoners Incarcerated In Federal Institutions

22880 94.116 Oral Search Warrants

62879 94.600 Hypnosis

Undtd 97.000 Defendant Overhearings and Attorney 97.317 Overhearlngs Wiretap Motions

81679 97.230 PenRegister Surveillance

20680 911.220 Use of Grand Jury to Locate Fugitives

121378 911.220 Use of Grand Jury to Locate Fugitives

53177 911 230 Grand Jury Subpoena for Telephone Toll Records

81379 911.230 Fair Credit Reporting Act and Grand Jury Subpoenas

52279 916.210 Explanation of Special Parole in Entry of Pleas Pursuant to Rule 11 F.R Crim 391 VOL.28 MAY 23 1980 No ii

DATE AFFECTS USAM SUBJECT

91577 927 000 Federal Telephone Search Warrant System

111379 934 220 Prep Reports on Convicted Prisoners for Parole Commission

102279 942.000 Coordination of Fraud Against the Government Cases nondisciosable

22780 947 120 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Review Procedure

62979 960.291 Forfeiture of Devices Illegally Used to Intercept Wire or Oral Communications

52279 961.132 and Steps to be Taken to Assure the 961.133 Serious Consideration of All Motor Vehicle Theft Cases for Prosecution

52279 963.165 Revision of Prosecutive Policy to Reflect Availability of Civil Penalty for Processing Individuals who.Attempt to Carry Firearm Aboard Carrier Aircraft

80879 969.260 Perjury False Affidavits Submitted in Federal Court Proceedings Do Not Constitute Perjury Under 18 USC 1623

1380 969 420 Issuance of Federal Complaint in Aid of States Prerequisites to Policy

31279 979.260 Access to information filed pursuant to the Currency Foreign Transactions Reporting Act

51178 9120 160 Fines in Youth Corrections Act Cases

31480 9120 120 Armed Forces Locator Services

22980 9121 120 Authority to Compromise Close .153 and .154 Appearance Bond Forfeiture Judgements

42l80 9121 140 Application of Cash Bail to Criminal Fines

40579 9123.000 Costs of Prosecution 28 U.S.C 1918b

Revised 5780 392 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

ADDENDUM

Note that you should remove the Eluesheet affecting 927.000 from your U.S Attorneys Manual This Bluesheet was replaced by the bluesheet dated February 28 1980 affectIng USAM 94.116

Criminal Division 393 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS MANUAL--TRANSMITTALS

The following United States Attorneys Manual Transmittals have been issued to date in accordance with USAM 11.500 This monthly listing may be removed from the Bulletin and used as check list to assure that your Manual is up to date

TRANSMITTAL AFFECTING DATE DATE OF TITLE NO MO/DAY/YR Text CONTENTS

8/20/76 8/31/76 Ch 123

9/03/76 9/15/76 Ch

9/14/76 9/24/76 Ch

9/16/76 10/01/76 Ch

2/04/77 1/10/77 Ch 61012

3/10/77 1/14/77 Ch 11

6/24/77 6/15/77 Ch 13

1/18/78 2/01/78 Ch 14

5/18/79 5/08/79 Ch

10 8/22/79 8/02/79 Revisions to 11.400

11 10/09/79 10/09/79 Index to Manual

12 11/21/79 11/16/79 RevIsion to Ch 11

13 1/15/80 1/18/80 Ch ili 2930 4145

6/25/76 7/04/76 Ch to

8/11/76 7/04/76 Index

6/23/76 7/30/76 Ch to

11/19/76 7/30/76 Index 394 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

8/15/79 6/31/79 Revisions to Ch

9/25/79 7/31/79 Ch

1/02/77 1/02/77 Ch to 15

1/21/77 1/03/77 Ch

3/15/77 1/03/77 Index

11/28/77 11/01/77 Revisions to Ch 16 1115 Index

2/04/77 1/11/77 Ch to

3/17/77 1/11/77 Ch 10 to 12

6/22/77 4/05/77 Revisions to Ch 18

8/10/79 5/31/79 Letter from Attorney General to Secretary of Interior

3/31/77 1/19/77 Ch to

4/26/77 1/19/77 Index

3/01/79 1/11/79 Complete Revision of Title

11/18/77 11/22/76 Ch to

3/16/77 11/22/76 Index

1/04/77 1/07/77 Ch

1/21/77 9/30/77 Ch to

5/13/77 1/07/77 Index

6/21/77 9/30/76 Ch pp 36

2/09/78 1/31/78 Revisions to Ch 3/14/80 3/6/80 Revisions to Ch 395 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

1/12/77 1/10/77 Ch 41117 18343738

2/15/78 1/10/77 Ch 7100122

1/18/77 1/17/77 Ch 121416 40414243

1/31/77 1/17/77 Ch 130 to 139

2/02/77 1/10/77 Ch 12810 15101102104 120121

3/16/77 1/17/77 Ch 20606163 6465666970 717273757677 .78798590110

9/08/77 8/01/77 Ch pp 81 129 Ch.9 39

10/17/77 10/01/77 Revisions to Ch

4/04/78 3/18/78 Index

10 5/15/78 3/23/78 Revisions to Ch 4815 and new Ch

11 5/23/78 3/14/78 Revisions to Ch 111214 1718 20

12 6/15/78 5/23/78 Revisions to Ch 404143 4460

13 7/12/78 6/19/78 Revisions to Ch 616364 6566

14 8/02/78 7/19/78 Revisions to Ch 416971 757678 79

15 8/17/78 8/17/78 Revisions to Ch 11 396 VOL 28 MAY 23 1980 NO 11

16 8/25/78 8/02/78 Revisions to Ch 8590100 101 102

17 9/11/78 8/24/78 Revisions to Ch 120121122 132133136137 138 139

18 11/15/78 10/20/78 Revisions to Ch

19 11/29/78 11/8/78 Revisions to Ch

20 2/01/79 2/1/79 Revisions to Ch

21 2/16/79 2/05/79 Revisions to Ch 14611 15100

22 3/10/79 3/10/79 New Section 94.800

23 5/29/79 4/16/79 Revisions to Ch.61

24 8/27/79 4/16/79 Revisions to 969.420

25 9/21/79 9/11/79 Revision of Title Ch

26 9/04/79 8/29/79 Revisions to Ch 14

27 11/09/79 10/31/79 Revisions to Ch 11 73 and new Ch 47

28 1/14/80 1/03/80 DetaIled Table of Contents iIll Ch Ch pp 19201

29 3/17/80 3/6/80 Revisions to Ch 11 21 42 75 79 131 Index

30 4/29/80 4/1/80 Ch

DOJ.198o-03