*1 543 filing in this upon litiga- his to bail non of the in admitted Board decision of the Court organizations. District or the States court United the labor between two tion Columbia, bond of a including jurisdiction for District of decision, the the That ($5,000) Five Thousand it, appropriate- in sum of the render is of Board to the by surety approved the be tested, with to all, decision Dollars ly as a if at left to be is said bond of Court in which Clerk the Board under Mediation of the National filed, upon deposit amount with of said Railway or Act.4 Labor the Court, in cash of the District the Clerk Affirmed. States, of the United or bonds or notes executing appearance, for his and a bond 46(d) pursuant of the Federal to Rule Procedure; appellant’s of Rules Criminal upon conditioned the follow- bond to be ing: subject (1) to shall be Such release JONES, Appellant, Joseph Lee
Charles provisions of Title 18 Unit- the v. 3146; ed States Code § America, of UNITED STATES (2) Appellant surrender him- shall Appellee. custody of self forthwith to the No. 19595. Marshal for the United States Appeals of Court United States the District of Columbia when Circuit. District of Columbia properly upon so, called to do to 16, Feb. 1966. proceeded be dealt with and against according in his case to law, judgment ap- in case the pealed from in his case shall be affirmed, appeal or the be for Washing- Whalen, Jr., J. Arthur Mr. any dismissed, cause or the court) by (appointed ton, this was D. C. judgment be and reversed a appellant. pleadings for on the ordered, new trial or further or- Atty., Bress, U. S. David G. Messrs. der of this court entered be re- Q. Dean W. and and Frank Nebeker voking vacating order; or this Attys., Determan, on were Asst. S.U. (3) Appellant shall, immediately up- appellee. pleadings for the bond, report on his release on Bazelon, Judge, and Before Chief to the Probation of Officer the Burger Judges, McGowan, Circuit and United States District Court for in Chambers. Columbia; the District of Appellant (4) shall, pursuant to the PER CURIAM. discretion and direction of the Officer, report said ORDER Probation designated deputy to him or his appellant’s consideration of On further at such times and such manner for re- of or for bail motion reduction as pro- said Probation Officer recognizance pending personal lease on vides, subject to the same con- ap- supplemental on appeal, record of the applicable probation- ditions to remand, subsequent of peal to herein supervision. ers under his of supplemental for reduction the motion bond, opposition appellee’s the mo- of to The aforesaid Probation Officer is re- tions, appellant’s reply is and of it quested promptly to inform this court of by any may afore- Ordered the court that the matters which come to his atten- during granted, appellant supervision may and is tion said motion such be that 3, supra.
4. See note
544 adversely appellant’s right question. important, re- affect to lous More how- ever, on main bail. is the fact that he has now been convicted of a serious of crime violence Judge:
BAZELON, Chief prior and has a conviction in another jurisdiction. granted The District Court and set bail $10,600. Appel- of bond-in the amount in for reduc-
lant then moved this court $5,000.
tion to had ac- Since no reasons
companied the District Court’s initial or-
der, abeyance we held the motion in and -District
remanded the record so that the might why it
Court advise us as to had subject appellant
found a fit for bail and danger community,
not a had to the but
nevertheless set bond in an amount which appellant the record could not indicated McCLOSKEY AND COMPANY, (See January 4, meet. order dated Appellant, 1966). Thereupon the Government mov- v. pre- ed the District Court vacate to its COMPANIES, ALLSTATE INSURANCE deny altogether, vious order and bail Corporation, Appellee. a granted appel- which motion was over No. 19163. opposition. again, lant’s Once the trial gave court no for United reasons action. Appeals States its Court of District of Columbia Circuit. circumstances, I would Under such Argued 8, ordinarily once and Dec. the case 1965. remand ad again to request District Court the 24, Decided March 1966. considera to “reasons and vise as the fair “Both of bail. for its denial tions” role appellant court’s and this
ness to the require Dis the in bail administration deny for reasons
trict to state its Court States, ing v. United bail.” Hansford (Oct. (dissenting 29, 1965) F.2d 858
353 And, are
opinion). no reasons where given, accorded decision cannot be “the weight merit.”
the it would otherwise States, 78 275 F.2d
Rhodes v. United
(4th 1960). Cir. Judge Burger However, since would Judge deny would and bail McGowan join grant $5,000,1 the of bail amount in Judge solely pur- for the
with McGowan reaching
pose in case. of a decision the Judge (dissenting):
BURGER, Circuit
Appellant, in not a resident is who jurisdiction, his release on seeks
this recognizance personal or on bail own appeal. pending of his determination degree mur- indicted for second
He was jury the verdict of the returned der and
manslaughter. of the rec- On the basis presents Tamm, us, Judge, no non-frivo-
ord before he Circuit dissented.