LINDA STOUT ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-CROSS-APPELLEES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-APPELLANT,

v.

JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT GROVE, DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR-APPELLEE-CROSS-APPELLANT; LINDA STOUT ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-APPELLEE, V. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT GROVE, DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR-APPELLANT; LINDA STOUT ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-APPELLEE, CHARLES OWENS ET AL., MOVANTS-APPELLANTS, V. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES; LINDA STOUT, BY HER FATHER, AND NEXT FRIEND, BLEVIN STOUT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERVENOR

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.

It is further ordered that our prior order taxing costs in the case be vacated and that costs be taxed one-fourth (*4) against the Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross Appellees, Linda Stout, et al., and three-fourth (%) against the Defendants-Appellees, Jefferson County Board of Education, et al., and Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Board of Education of the City of Pleasant Grove.

. Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, 442 F. 2d 570 (4th Cir., 1971), cert. granted 404 U.S. 820, 92 S.Ct. 56, 30 L.Ed.2d 48; and United States v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education, 442 F. 2d 575 (4th Cir., 1971), cert. granted 404 U.S. 821, 92 S.Ct. 47, 30 L.Ed.2d 49.

. The district court on this issue concluded :

“THE COURT: I think for this first phase of this case. I can go ahead and announce my conclusions, because they will be governing what would come up next.

“I do think that all the school systems are governed by the same standard, that is, Vestavia and Homewood be governed by the same standards as Midfield and Pleasant Grove. But the standard is not to deny the possibility of a creation of separate systems that is allowed under state law unless that state law interferes with the disestablishment of a dual school system. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. The test, as I see it and under the Fifth Circuit has directed me, is to look at the particular school district involved and see whether the recognition of that district with whatever modification would be made thwart the implementation of a unitary school system in the county as a whole. Then if it does, then to that extent the Court would disregard the creation or existence of that system. I think it is, however, pretty clear that the demography, the location of people and their colors is different in the area generally. In the southern part of the county, from that end of midwest, I guess you would call it, that is areas where Pleasant Grove and Midfield are located, so that it very well may be that more recognition in that sense of the viability of Homewood and Vestavia can be given than may be given to Midfield and Pleasant Grove, simply because of the reality of the situation of where the people live. I think the approach basically is to look on tlie entire county system, including these four separate areas, as a single unit, and to see what can be done in terms of assuring the unitary system. And if and to the extent these separate systems interfere with that process, then they are going to have to give way to that efeet, to that extent.”