UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
November 17, 1981
MELVYN, E. STEIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE, &
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Before Hon. THOMAS E. FAIRCHILD, Senior Circuit Judge Hon. WILBUR F. PELL, JR., Circuit Judge Hon. BARBARA B. CRABB, District Judge*fn*
Prentice H. Marshall, Judge
The court, on its motion and being duly advised, now amends and modifies its opinion, which opinion was filed on October 19, 1981, in the following respects:
At page 5 of the slip opinion the last two lines are amended to read as follows:
On March 24, 1980, acting on a motion by the government to adopt the March 28, 1979 order allowing the withholding of the documents, the district court reversed its earlier decision and ordered that the government....
At page 13 of the slip opinion the sentence reading as follows:
In conducting our own review of the claims of exemption in this case, see Part III infra, we have examined the original public affidavit, the index, and justification for withholding the documents, the public affidavit of Special Agent Deal submitted after the case was remanded to the district court, and the documents.
is amended to read as follows:
In reviewing the lower court's two decisions on release of the classified documents, we have examined the original public affidavit, the index, and justification for withholding the documents, the public affidavit of Special Agent Dean submitted after the case was remanded to the district court, and the documents. From our examination of the claims of exemption in this case, see Part III, infra, we are satisfied that when the case was first before it, in 1979, the district court made a proper review of the classification claimed by defendants. We find and conclude that the court was correct in its March 28, 1979 decision to allow withholding of the documents, but that the court applied an erroneous legal standard when it ordered release of the same documents in March 1980.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
On consideration of the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc filed in the above-entitled cause by plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee, Melvyn E. Stein, no judge in active service has requested a vote thereon, and all of the judges on the original panel have voted to deny a rehearing. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the aforesaid petition for rehearing be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.