MEMORANDUM ***

Anthony P.X. Bothwell, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging violations of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.

*336 The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bothwell’s FOIA requests for records pertaining to Jean Souetre because, even if the articles Both-well submitted were admissible, they did not establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) waived the application of FOIA Exemption 3. See Pickard v. Dep’t of Justice, 653 F.3d 782, 786 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth criteria for determining whether a fact is deemed “officially acknowledged”). We reject as without merit Bothwell’s contentions regarding redaction of records and the CIA’s alleged error in failing to consider the public interest before invoking Exemption 3,

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bothwell’s FOIA requests for records pertaining to David Morales because Bothwell did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the CIA’s search for responsive records was inadequate. See Lahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 987-89 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that agency’s declarations established that it conducted searches reasonably calculated to uncover responsive records and the agency’s failure to produce or identify a few isolated documents was insufficient to show its searches were inadequate). Bothwell’s contentions regarding the CIA’s prior disclosure of certain records and alleged error in failing to consider the public interest are inappo-site because the CIA did not invoke an exemption in response to Bothwell’s FOIA request pertaining to Morales.

AFFIRMED.