“[t]he sole issue ... is the existence of a relevant statute and the inclusion of withheld material within that statute’s coverage.” Goland v. CIA 607 F.2d 339, 350 (D.C.Cir.1978). Courts limit nondisclosure statutes to those that are “the product of congressional appreciation of the dangers inherent in airing particular data” and that “incorporatef ] a formula whereby the administrator may determine precisely whether th Criminal Procedure 6(e), which prohibits the release of grand jury transcripts, as well as the names or identities of actual or potential grand jury witnesses, or other information that would reveal the scope, focus, and direction of the grand jury. See Fund for Constitutional Government v. Nat’l Archives and Records Service, 656 F.2d 856, 867, 869 (D.C.Cir. 1981) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the DOC properly invokes the
holding that rule 6e qualifies as a statute for purposes of exemption 3 holding a debtors claim for loss of consortium to be entitled to an exemption under the oklahoma exemption statute and collecting other bankruptcy decisions recognizing a debtor spouses loss of consortium as the basis for allowing an exemption under federal and various state exemption statutes holding that  6103 qualifies as an exemption statute holding that various versions of the statute qualify as an exemption 3 statute holding that the statute qualifies as an exemption 3 statute