LORETTA STARVUS STACK, AL RICHMOND, PHILIP MARSHALL CONNELLY, DOROTHY ROSENBLUM HEALEY, ERNEST OTTO FOX, WILLIAM SCHNEIDERMAN, CARL RUDE LAMBERT, HENRY STEINBERG, OLETA O'CONNOR YATES, ROSE CHERNIN KUSNITZ, MARY BERNADETTE DOYLE, AND ALBERT JASON LIMA, APPELLANTS,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

PER CURIAM.

The order denying the motion of appellants to reduce the bail of $50,000.00 is reversed. The case is remanded and the district court ordered to enter orders as follows :

For each of the appealing defendants

Loretta Starvus Stack William Schneiderman Albert Jason Lima Carl Rude Lambert Oleta O’Connor Yates Henry Steinberg Mary Bernadette Doyle an order that he or she be released from confinement upon the posting of bail in the sum of $10,000.00 cash or bond conditioned as required by law, to be approved by the District Court for the Southern District of California and filed with the Clerk of that court.

For each of the following appealing defendants

Al Richmond Philip Marshall Connelly Dorothy Rosenblum Healey Rose Chernin Kusnitz Ernest Otto Fox an order that he or she be released from confinement upon the posting of bail in the sum of $5,000.00 cash or bond conditioned as required by law, to be approved by the district court for the Southern District of California and filed with the Clerk of that court.

WILLIAM DENMAN Chief Judge ALBERT LEE STEPHENS Circuit Judge WILLIAM HEALY Circuit Judge WALTER L. POPE Circuit Judge

BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

We concur in the order of this court reversing the order of the District Court denying the motion to' reduce bail theretofore fixed in the sum of $50,000.

We dissent from the order of this court fixing bail of certain of the appealing defendants at $10,000 and of other appealing defendants in the sum of $5,000, for the reason that we deem, said amounts to be inadequate.

HOMER T. BONE WM. E. ORR United States Circuit Judges.

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge

(dissenting).

On the grounds and for the reasons stated in its opinion, United States v. Schneiderman, D.C.S.D.Cal., 102 F.Supp. 52, the District Court’s order should be affirmed.