With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the contention that the Assistant Attorney General made the final decision here. Accordingly, the Court finds that the final agency decision in this case was made by Andrews, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division. Since the Court has now determined that the final agency decision in this case was that of the Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General, all documents prepared by the agency with regard to this prosecution prior to the final decision of Andrews to authorize the prosecution of Reverend Moon and Mr. Kamiyama would be considered predecisional and allowing release of these memoranda would violate the intent of the deliberative process privilege. In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Dep’t of Justice, 81-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9670, 1981 WL 1870 (D.D.C.1981) (<HOLDING>), this court explained: Taking the documents as

A: holding attorney workproduct was exempt from disclosure under foia exemption 5 even after the case was dismissed and litigation terminated by the ftc
B: holding that memoranda prepared by various levels of staff lawyers within the department of justice tax division and by an assistant united states attorney were exempt from disclosure under foia exemption 5
C: holding that the names of thirdparty inmates within memoranda were categorically exempt from disclosure absent compelling evidence of illegal activity by the bop
D: holding that the work product doctrine applied to a document prepared in anticipation of litigation and was therefore protected from disclosure under foia exemption 5
B.