of the District Court.” Holland v. Nat’l Mining Ass’n, 309 F.3d 808, 814 (D.C.Cir.2002). We review de novo the Commission’s interpretation of FOIA. Al-Fayed v. CIA, 254 F.3d 300, 307 (D.C.Cir.2001). We will uphold the Commission’s application of Exemption 7(B) to the facts here unless its decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Ill FOIA “requires government agencies to make public virtually all information that is not specifically exempted from disclosure under the Act.” North v. Walsh, 881 F.2d 1088, 1093-94 (D.C.Cir.1989). Government agencies must generally release requested records without regard to the identity or motive of the re-questor. See, e.g., NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 n. 23, 98 S.Ct. 2311, 57 L.Ed.2d 159 (1978) (<HOLDING>). In consequence, FOIA sometimes enables
holding that civil forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding that findings of fact and legal conclusions are neither necessary nor proper in summary judgment proceeding holding that a foia requestors rights are neither diminished nor enhanced in light of a particular litigationgenerated need for these materials holding that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons under  1983 holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment