US · guidance
Justice Manual § 9-14.008
Deputy Attorney General’s Decision
The DAG may grant or deny an exception as to one or more individual items of evidence in a case and not others in that case.
If the DAG grants the USAO’s appeal, the decision will be in writing and will cite the exceptions provided in 9-14.003 that justify the non-initiation of the seized evidence disposal process and the continued retention of the evidence.
If the DAG denies the USAO’s appeal to retain the evidence, the decision will be in writing and will explain:
1) that the exception(s) cited by the USAO are not among those described in 9-14.003; or
2) that the USAO has provided summary assertions in support of a valid exception; or
3) that the USAO has provided otherwise insufficient reasons to justify the applicability of a valid exception.
If the DAG denies the appeal, the seized evidence disposal process may commence immediately after the DAG’s decision is provided to the USAO and the SAC.
The DAG will electronically transmit the decision to the USAO and the SAC within five days after it is issued.
The DAG’s decision is final. No further appeal is available. However, if, after the DAG grants the USAO’s appeal to retain the evidence, the reasons set forth in the DAG’s written decision for continued retention of the evidence become inapplicable, the SAC may commence the seized evidence disposal process via the notice described in 9-14.004.
History
[added December 2020]
Provenance
- Source
- justice.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-20
- Edition
- jm-2026-09-20
- Content hash
8ae9e0cfab4cfaa88a7b4987ddd93542ab7e8c7b196935d76b513b80500c7086
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.