Before WALD, SILBERMAN and STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the response thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear so as to justify summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C.Cir.1987) (per curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C.Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980). Lavado has failed to demonstrate that the district court erred in finding that the agency did not improperly withhold documents. See Weisberg v. Department of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1352 (D.C.Cir.1983); Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942, 954 (D.C.Cir.1986); Miller v. Dep't of State, 779 F.2d 1378, 1385 (8th Cir.1985); Marrera v. Department of Justice, 622 F.Supp. 51, 54 (D.D.C.1985). Further, while the issue of redactions on the BP-DIR's is raised for the first time on appeal, Lavado has not complained that the BP-DIR's are otherwise unresponsive to his request. It further appears that the redactions of inmate-specific information are proper pursuant to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 1330.7 Para. 8(c).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir. Rule 15.