Amite County Brief in Support of and Motion to Dismiss

    FRED L. BANKS, JR. 

ISAAC K. BYRD, JR 

BOB OWENS 

Sy  # 

BANKS, OWENS & BYRD » 
2 Mlosreys al Soin 

403 SOUTH STATE STREET 

POST OFFICE BOX 19 

JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39205-0019 

AREA CODE 601 352-8443 

February 22,1985 RAYMOND OFFICE: 
114 E. MAIN STREET 

RAYMOND, MISSISSIPPI 39154 

AREA CODE 601 353-9477 

DENISE SWEET-OWENS 

Theodore Shaw, Esq. 

NAACP Legal Defense & 

Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street; 16th Floor 

New York, New York 10013 

Dear Teddy: 

Enclosed for your review and comments are copies of 

the Amite County School District's Motion To Dismiss and 

Brief In Support Of Motion To Dismiss. 

    
Sincerely, 

Fred L. Banks, J 

msc 

Encl. 

 



  

WM. F. GOODMAN, JR. 

JAMES A BECKER,JR 

H.H WHITWORTH 

P N HARKINS J 

JOHN G CORLEW 

THOMAS M. MURPHREE, JR. JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39205 

JAMES L.CARROLL 

GEORGE R. FAIR 

THOMAS C. GERITY 

JOHN L.LOW, IY 

    

     

& WATKINS & EAGER } 35 

TTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT) / 3 

800 PEOPLES BANK BUILDING bi FEB 2 1 1985 ! 

P. 0. BOX 650 AYR 1 
FS Ne, a A 

x 

i] 
AE i i 

a 4 Ti 
1 LIAM H. WATKINS 

5 IA9S-1959 

PAT H. EAGER, JR. 

19216-1870 

MICHAEL W. ULMER 

PAUL H. STEPHENSON TI 

WM. F. GOODMAN TI 

CLIFFORD B. AMMONS 

JAMIE G. HOUSTON, XI 

FRANK J HAMMOND, IL 

RICHARD T. LAWRENCE 

ROBERT H. PEDERSEN 

VIRGINIA T. MUNFORD 

STEVEN D. ORLANSKY 

ROBERT A. MILLER 

DOUGLAS J. GUNN 

PAUL J. STEPHENS 

DAVID L. AYERS 

FRANK A WOOD, JR. 

Hon. Tom S. Lee 

United States District Judge 
Post Office Drawer 22846 

Jackson, Mississippi 39225 

RE: United States of America, 
Amite County School District, 

Civil Action No. 

et al v. 

  

Dear Judge Lee: 

  
ELIZABETH HULEN 

1934-19877 

  

THOMAS H. WATKINS 

WM. E. SUDDATH. JR. 

OF COUNSEL 

(601) 248-6470 

Enclosed herewith with regard to the above-referenced 

matter, please find a copy of the Defendants' Motion to 

Dismiss and the original and one copy of a brief in support 

of said motion. 

With kindest regards, we remain 

Sincerely, 

WATKINS & EAGER 

SASL 
Robert A. Miller 

    

  

RAM: th 

Enclosure 

cc: Fred L. Banks, Esquire 
Mr. Nathaniel Douglas 
Mr. Maurice Foreman 

    

 



   ® WATKINS & EAGER 
Ww . Rr. 

M7: GOODMAN. 4 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 
JAMES A. BECKER, JR. 

H H WHITWORTH 

P. N. HARKINS, II 

JOHN G. CORLEW 

THOMAS M. MURPHREE, JR. 

JAMES L.CARROLL 

800 PEOPLES BANK BUILDING 

P. 0. BOX 650 

JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39205 

GEORGE R. FAIR 

THOMAS C. GERITY 

JOHN L.LOW, IX 

MICHAEL W. ULMER 

  

PAUL H. STEPHENSON, I 

WM. F. GOODMAN, Ir 

CLIFFORD B. AMMONS 

JAMIE G. HOUSTON, I 

FRANK J. HAMMOND, IL 

RICHARD T. LAWRENCE 

ROBERT H. PEDERSEN 

VIRGINIA T. MUNFORD 

STEVEN D. ORLANSKY 

ROBERT A. MILLER 

DOUGLAS J. GUNN 

PAUL J. STEPHENS 

DAVID L. AYERS 

FRANK A. WOOD, JR. 

  

  

[3% - - - % Nf ww pm +E 5 w= 
SiON. Dlarence Ss ® Piegxes, Cl eA 

AF TPE EE PY wu pe . on F & I 
United States District Court 
£3 on ou 3a ~ SS 2 % 2 
Pogt Office Box 769 

be 18 eof 4 on ey 4 ELLIS Jackson, #Mlssissippl 3¥2U5 

“1S y FRE THE. €1 fo 2m Po gn Pp oe Pm 3 ~ a 

Rit: United Stateg of America, Inc., et al v. 
A vu 4 dw gw F¥ na ” “x ty avg pm £3 = Ber oe 2 
AR1 CE County School Distr 1Ct, eT al 
“0 <3 : , A537 

g 1v1i : I Th J 3 

Doar Mr. Pisrxrce: 

{
1
 

WILLIAM H. WATKINS 

1895-1959 

PAT H. EAGER, JR. 

1916-1970 

ELIZABETH HULEN 

1934-1977 

THOMAS H. WATKINS 

WM. E. SUDDATH., JR. 

OF COUNSEL 

  

(e801) 948-6470 

P
T
R
 

o 
o
g
 

fey
 

  

5S mw eo nt TYen 

       

TE 1 pape we real 48 24 25 § =v aria we i a be Ba - ER 
dank you i10X you aggisztance in this matter. 

-y 2 a -~ Sincerely, 

YB NEB Ty 
aod FEAT 3 AN 

1% 9 # = 34 

KAW oh 

a] kK 4 - 

Enclosure 
ya” Rel TY a - - sie} ‘red L. Banks, Esgulirs 
5 Oh TU I 1 £m Bu 
vile ARALOANIEA Douglas 
v4 $ - - Fd - 
Ale #HAURTAICE FOILAD 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

JACKSON DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by 

WILLIAM FRENCH SMITH, Attorney 

General of the United States, 
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND 

EDUCATIONAL FUND PLAINTIFFS 

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3983 

AMITE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; 

MAURICE E. FOREMAN, Superintendent 
of Education, Amite County School 
District; J. H., SMITH, L. W. GRAVES, 
DOUGLAS STEWART, CURTIS BISHOP, and 

REBECCA ROBERTSON, Trustees, Amite 
County School District DEFENDANTS 

MOTION TO DISMISS 
  

The defendants in the above-styled and numbered cause, 

by and through their attorneys, hereby move the Court to 

dissolve all outstanding court orders under which the Amite 

County School District has been operating and to dismiss and 

terminate this cause, and in support thereof would show unto 

the Court the following: 

1. 

On or about August 9, 1966, United States of America 

filed suit against the defendants seeking the disestablishment 

of a racially segregated school system. Pursuant to orders 

 



  

of this Court and orders of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Amite County School 

District has maintained a unitary school system for over 

sixteen (16) years and, with respect to student assignment, 

seven (7) years. The orders in effect are United States v.   

Hinds County School Board (United States v. Amite County 
  

School District), 423 F.24 1264 (5th Cir. 1969), as modified   

by order of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dated December 

10, 1969; United States v, Amite County School District, 560 
  

F.24 (5h Car. 1977); and order of this Court entered October 

19,:1977. 

2. 

Since January 2, 1978, the Amite County School District 

has operated a unitary school system and has complied with 

all desegregation directives and orders of the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi and 

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The 

Anite County School District has submitted semi-annual 

reports to this Court and to Amicus Curiae. 

3. 

The Amite County School District has achieved a unitary 

school system with respect to faculty, staff, transportation, 

extracurricular activities, facilities and composition of 

student body. It is in the best interests of the students 

and employees of the Amite County School District, as well 

 



  

as other citizens within the district, that this action be 

dismissed and finally terminated on the docket of this 

Court. 

WHEREFORE, the defendants move the Court to enter an 

order adjudicating the following: 

1. That the Amite County School District has operated 

as a unitary school system since 1978; 

2. The Amite County School District has complied with 

all desegregation directives and orders of the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi and 

of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; 

3. All outstanding decrees and orders are dissolved; 

4, Civil Action No. 3983(L) shall be finally dismissed 

and terminated on the docket of this Court; and 

5. For such other, further relief as this Court may 

deem proper under the circumstances. 

This the QW day Of February, 1985. 

| Respectfully submitted, 

AMITE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; 

MAURICE E. FOREMAN, Superintendent 
of Education, Amite County School 
District; J. B. SMITH, L. W. GRAVES, 

DOUGLAS STEWART, CURTIS BISHOP, and 

REBECCA ROBERTSON, Trustees, Amite 

County School District 

sv JAA 7H DUM Sp 
‘Attorney for Defendgrits ° 
  

T. FP, Badon 

Post Office Box 353 
Liberty, Mississippi- 39645 
Telephone (601)657-8054 

Robert A. Miller 

WATKINS & EAGER 

Post Office Box 650 

Jackson, Mississippi 39205 
Telephone (601)948-6470 

 



  

NOTICE OF HEARING 
  

TO: Fred L. Banks, Jr., Esquire 
Banks and Nichols 
Post Office Drawer 290 
Jackson, Mississippi 39205 

Nathaniel Douglas, Chief Educational 
Opportunities Litigation Section, 
Civil Rights Section 

United States Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the defendants in the above 

styled and numbered cause, by and through their attorneys, will 

call on for hearing their Motion to Dismiss before the Honorable 

Tom S. Lee, United States District Judge, in his chambers in 

Jackson, Mississippi, as soon as counsel may be heard. 

This the 7 aay of Februar 1335, 

ed) PY a 
Robert A. Miller 
  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I, Robert A. Miller, one of the attorneys for the defendants 

in the above styled and numbered cause, do hereby certify that 

I have this day forwarded a true and correct copy of the above 

and foregoing Motion to Dismiss and notice thereof to Fred L. 

Banks, Jr., Esquire, Banks and Nichols, Post Office Drawer 290, 

Jackson, Mississippi 39205; and to Nathaniel Douglas, Chief 

Educational Opportunities Litigation Section, Civil Rights 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 

20530. 

This the ik day of February, 1985. 

VA ey 
  

Robert A. Miller 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

JACKSON DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by 

WILLIAM FRENCH SMITH, Attorney 
General of the United States, 
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND 

EDUCATIONAL FUND PLAINTIFFS 

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3983 

AMITE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; 
MAURICE E. FOREMAN, Superintendent 
of Education, Amite County School 
District; J. H. SMITH, L. W. GRAVES, 
DOUGLAS STEWART, CURTIS BISHOP, and 

REBECCA ROBERTSON, Trustees, Amite 
County School District DEFENDANTS 

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION TO DISMISS 
  

By the instant motion, the Amite County School District, 

the Amite County School Superintendent, and the Amite County 

School District Board of Trustees are seeking to dissolve 

all outstanding injunctive orders and to dismiss the above- 

referenced case on the grounds that the school district has 

achieved unitary status and has operated continuously for 

over seven (7) years without a court action. Proof in the 

form of semi-annual reports submitted by the District to the 

Court and in the form of verbal testimony by the Superintendent 

and possibly others will show that, with respect to faculty, 

 



  

staff, transportion, extracurricular activities, facilities 

and composition of student body, the District has achieved a 

unitary school system. See Green v. County School Board of 
  

New Rent County, Virginia, 391 0.5. 430, 88 S. Ct. 1689, 20 
  

L.Ed.2d 716 (1968); Singleton v. Jackson Mun. Separate School 
  

Dist., 541 PF. Supp. 904, 906 (S.D. Miss. 1981). 

At the present time, the Amite County School District 

1s operating under the direct order of the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, 

dated October 19, 1977. This order, entered by Judge Russell, 

approved the Amite County School District's desegregation 

plan that was devised by the school district pursuant to 

Department of Health, Education and Welfare recommendations 

submitted to the Court in August, 1969. The District Court's 

order commanded that the plan become effective on or before 

November 1, 1977. There have been no further orders of the 

District Court in this case. Since the entry of this order, 

the District has submitted semiannual reports due on October 

15 and April 15 of each school year. Since the October 19, 

1977, District Court order, there has been no further judicial 

activity other than the Fifth Circuit's terminating the 

requirement for submitting the semi-annual reports to the 

appellate court without affecting the reporting requirements 

to the District Court and others. 

 



  

The desegregation plan for the Amite County School 

District, as implemented by the District Court order of 

October 19, 1977, is virtually identical to other plans 

enacted by court order throughout the State of Mississippi—~__ 

and other southern states. The plan is frequently referred 

to by courts within the Fifth Circuit as "Singleton" plan 
  

\/ 

  

In the Fifth Circuit case of Singleton A. Jackson Mun. Separate 
Nn Ray 

School Dist., 418% F.24:1211, (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc), 
  

cert, denied, 396 U.S. 1032, 90 Sup. Ct. 612, 24 1,.E4.24 530   

(1970), the Fifth Circuit mandated the implementation of a 

desegregation plan devised by the Department of Health, 

Education and Welfare in sixteen school districts in Missis- 

sippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida. The companion 

opinion United States v. Hinds County School Board, (United 
  

States v. Amite County School District), 423 F.2d 1264, (5th 
  

Cir. 1969), ordered the Singleton-type plan implemented in 
  

Amite County and in various other school districts. Compliance 

was mandated by December 31, 1969. Except for the pupil 

assignment portion of the plan, the Amite County School 

District has operated under the Singleton-type plan since 
  

December 31, 1969. For approximately seven years, the Amite 

County School District, with court approval, assigned pupils 

on the basis of sex. This changed when, on September 21, 

1977, the Fifth Circuit required the Amite County School 

Board to cease student assignment by sex in the case of 

 



  

United States v. Amite County School District, 560 F.2d 619 
  

(5th Cir. 1977). Therefore, with regard to all areas except 

student assignment, the Amite County School District has 

  

operated under the Singleton-type plan for the last fourteen 

years and, with regard to student assignment, for the last 

seven years. 

For the Court's convenience, a synopsis of the litigation 

is attached to this brief as Appendix I. Significantly, the 

Court file shows no action whatsoever by the plaintiffs or 

by Amicus Curiea for over seven years. 

The semi-annual reports filed in the Court file amply 

demonstrate that the faculty, transportion, facilities and 

student body composition are unitary. The Amite County 

School District operates four schools, Gloster Elementary 

School, Gloster High School, Liberty Elementary School and 

Liberty High School. By way of background, the 1980 census 

for Amite County reflected a total of 6996 white residents, 

6365 black residents and 110 other residents, the percentages 

being 52, 47 and 1, respectively. The 1980 census also 

reflected that, for the age group 6 through 19, inclusive, 

there were 1433 white residents, 2129 black residents and 31 

other, with the percentages being 40, 59 and 1, respectively. 

The 1980 census further reflected that, for the age ‘group 20 

through 60, inclusive, there were 3794 white residents, 25679 

black residents and 50 other, the percentages being 58, 41 

 



  

and 1, respectively. A copy of the relevant portion of the 

1980 Census of Population published by the U. S. Department 

of Commerce is attached as Appendix II. 

The Mississippl Research and Development Center's 1985 

census projection reflects a total of 7059 white and 6142 

non-white residents, the percentage being 53 and 47, res- 

pectively. The same projection shows that for the age group 

5 through 19, inclusive, there are 1528 white residents and 

1911 non-white residents, the percentages being 44 and 56, 

respectively. The 1985 census projection also shows that, 

for the age group 20 through 64, inclusive, there are 3867 

white residents, 2719 non-white residents, the percentages 

being 59 and 41, respectively. A copy of the relevant 

portions of the Mississippi Research and Development Center's 

County Population Projections is attached hereto as Appendix 

1X1. 

Using the above-quoted census figures as a reference, 

this Court can readily understand that the Amite County 

School District has achieved unitary status with respect to 

pupil assignment, faculty composition, staff composition, 

facilities, and transportion. With regard to employees and 

staff, the Amite County School District is prepared to show 

this Court that there are presently 249 employees and staff 

other than faculty members in the Amite County School District. 

Of these employees and staff, 183 are black and 66 are 

 



  

white, the percentages being 74 and 26. The District is 

further prepared to show the complete unitary status of 

extracurricular activities. Through use of the semi-annual 

reports filed in the Court file, the District is prepared to 

show complete desegregation with regard to faculty, transpor- 

tion, facilities and student body composition. 

For example, the First Term 1978-79 School Year Semi- 

Annual Report shows that the District's faculty was composed 

of 127 black teachers and 55 white teachers, the percentages 

being 69.8 and 30.2, respectively. The same report shows a 

pupil enrollment of 1972 black students and 439 white students, 

the percentages being 81.8 and 18.2, respectively. The most 

recent semi-annual report, that for the First Term 1934-35 

School Year, shows a faculty composition of 124 black teachers 

and 50 white teachers, the percentages being 71.3 and 28.7, 

respectively. The same report shows a pupil enrollment of 

1690 black students and 323 white students, the percentages 

being 84 and 16, respectively. The two reports mentioned 

above and all of the reports in between show roughly the 

same distribution in faculty and pupil enrollment. The 

semi-annual reports additionally demonstrate the unitary 

status of the school transportion system throughout Amite 

County. 

There is ample precedent for a district court's dissolving 

a Singleton-type order and dismissing a case. See Singleton     

E
T
T
 
T
T
T
,
 

a
 

P
e
 

Se 
SR 
T
E
 

  

 



  

v. Jackson Mun. Separate School Dist., 541 F. Supp. 904 
  

(S.D. Miss. 1981) (court granted school district relief from 

Singleton order after ten years operation as a unitary   

system); United States v. Corinth Mun. Separate School 
  

-Dist., 414 PF. Supp. 1336 (N.D. Miss. 1976) (court granted 

school district relief from Singleton order after seven   

years' operation as unitary system.) Indeed, the Fifth 

Circuit has stated "It has never been our purpose to keep 

these cases interminably in the federal courts." United 

States v. State of Texas (San Felipe Del Rio Consolidated 
  

Independent School Dist.), 509 F. Supp. 192, 194 (5th Cir. 
  

1975). 

CONCLUSION   

Upon an evidentiary hearing, the defendants will amply 

demonstrate to this Court that the Amite County School 

District has achieved unitary status in the areas of faculty, 

staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities 

and student body composition. The orders of this Court have 

been followed in all respects. There is no reason for the 

continued operation of the Amite County School District 

under the Singleton-type order and no reason for the District   

to submit the semi-annual reports required by this Court's 

October 19, 1977, order. Under these circumstances, the 

defendants respectfully request this Court to enter an order 

 



  

dissolving all outstanding court orders and finally dismissing 

this case. 

T. F. Badon 

Post Office Box 353 
Liberty, Mississippi 39645 
Telephone (601)657-8054 

Robert A. Miller 

WATKINS & EAGER 

Post Office Box 650 

Jackson, Mississippi 39205 
Telephone (601)948-6470 

Respectfully submitted, 

AMITE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; 

MAURICE E. FOREMAN, Superintendent 
of Education, Amite County School 
District; J. H. SMITH, L. W. GRAVES, 

DOUGLAS STEWART, CURTIS BISHOP, and 

REBECCA ROBERTSON, Trustees, Amite 
County School District 

on. Jd AL A ir” 
Attorney for Defepdants 
  

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE     

I, Robert A. Miller, one of the attorneys for the 

defendants in the above styled and numbered cause, do hereby 

certify that I have this day forwarded a true and correct 

copy of the above and foregoing memorandum brief to Fred L. 

Banks, Jr., Esquire, Banks and Nichols, Post Office Drawer 

290, Jackson, Mississippi 39205; and to Nathaniel Douglas, 

Chief Educational Opportunities Litigation Section, Civil 

Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington 

P.C. 520530. 

This the 20th day of February, 1985. 

NIAEZ, 7   
Robert A. Miller 

 



  

8/9/66 

8/17/66 

2/13/67 

5/5/67 

7/9/68 

7/23/68 

8/20/68 

5/13/69 

SUMMARY OF LITIGATION     

Justice Department filed suit against Amite 
County School District. 

Order of preliminary injunction (Judge Russell) 
implementing freedom of choice and other measures. 

District Court order (Judge Russell) clarifying 
injunction ordering Amite County School District 
to discontinue operating on basis of race or 
color and effecting freedom of choice desegregation. 

District Court order (Judge Russell) permanently 
enjoining Amite County School District from 
discriminating on basis of race or color and 
implementing mandatory exercise of choice 

District Court order (Judge Russell) requiring 

Amite County School Board to submit plan "to 
ensure the immediate and effective erradication 

of racially identifiable schools" by July 26, 1968. 

District Court order (Judge Russell) vacating 
July 9, 1968 order 

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion and order 
cited as Adams v. Mathews and United States v. 
Amite County School District, 403 F.2d 181 (5th 
    

  

Cir. 1968) ordering district court to determine 
adequacy of plans and whether plans will work 
immediately. In this opinion, the Fifth Circuit 
ordered school districts not to merely open doors 
but to take affirmative steps to desegregate 
school systems. 

District Court opinion (Judge's Cox, Russell 
and Nixon) denying plaintiff's motion to update 
25 cases to conform with Green v. County School 
Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 U.S. 430, 

  

  

88 Sup. Ct. 1689, 10 L.EAd.24 716 (1968) as to the 

working of freedom of choice plan to desegregate 
the student body of the schools in those 25 
school districts. This order denied the plain- 
tiff's request for forced mixing by ratio and 
was critical of the HEW plan. The opinion 
ordered desegregation of school faculties and 
set a target date. 

Appendix I - Page 1 

 



  

5/16/69 - District Court order (Judge Cox) denying the 
plaintiff's supplemental relief in accordance 
with May 13, 1969 opinion but ordering school 
boards to "take positive and affirmative 
steps to achieve the complete desegregation 
of their school faculties so that by the 
beginning of the 1970-71 school year, the 
pattern of teacher assignments is not 
identifiable as tailored for a heavy con- 
centration of either Negro or white pupils.” 

7/3/69 - Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion and 
order cited as United States v. Hinds County 
School Board and United States v. Amite 
county School District, 417 r.24 852, (5th 

Cir. 1969) reversing May 13 opinion and May 
16 order of the District Court and commanding 
zoning and pairing. The Fifth Circuit 
commanded desegregation of each school 
district's student body, faculty, staff, 
athletics, and school activities and school 

location and construction. The opinion 
further commanded that the school districts 
work with HEW and submit a plan no later 
than August 11, 1969, for implementation 
for the 1969-70 school year 

  

    

  

3/11/69 - HEW filed its plan with the court. 

8/19/69 — Amite County School District filed its objections 
to HEW plan. 

8/21/69 - Justice Department filed motion to extend time 
for submission of terminal desegregation 
plans to December 1, 1969. 

8/26/69 - Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 
by District Court (Judges Nixon and Russell) 
recommending Fifth Circuit approval of 
deadline extension to December 1, 1969, 
citing Hurricane Camille as one justification 
for delay in submission. 

8/28/69 - Fifth Circuit order - granting extension of 
time for HEW and school boards to work 
together and formulate desegregation plans 
to be submitted no later than December 1, 19689. 

Page 2 

 



  

10/29/69 =~ Order of United States Supreme Court cited 
as Alexander v. Homes County Board of 
Education, 396 U.S. 19, 90 Sup. Ct. 29, 
24 L.E4d.2d 19 (1969) - United States Supreme 
Court directing many school districts 
in Mississippi, including Amite County School 
District "to terminate dual school systems 
at once and to operate now and hereafter only 
unitary schools." 

  

  

11/3/69 ~ Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals order 
directing all parties to submit proposed 
orders by November 5. 

11/7/69 - Fifth Circuit opinion and order cited as 
United States v. Hinds County School Board 
and United States v. Amite County School 
District, 423 F.24 1264 (5th Cir. 1969) 
effecting the HEW plans with compliance 
mandated by December 31, 19609. 

  

  

  

At this point, the Amite County School 
District moved to amend the HEW plan only 
to the extent of pupil assignment. The 
school district proposed pupil assignment 
on the basis of sex. 

12/10/69 - Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals order 
modifying HEW student assignment plan by 
allowing proposed plan for assignment of 

students by sex for remainder of 1969-70 
school term and ordering Judge Russell 
to make findings of fact and recommendations 
for plan's continued use in 1970-71 school 
term. 

3/10/70 - Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals instituted 
semi-annual reporting requirements for 
school districts. 

7/14/70 - District Court Findings of Fact and Recommen- 
dations (Judge Russell). The Court, after 

hearing testimony of Miss Annie Andrews, 
Superintendent of Amite County School District, 
found in favor of assignment of students by 

sex and recommended to the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals that the Amite County School 
District be permitted to continue its 
assignment plan by sex and recommended that 
the "current desegregation of faculty and 

Page 3 

 



  

staff policy remain in effect...." 

8/6/70 Fifth Circuit order approving student 
assignment by sex plan for 1970-71 school 
term but deferring final ruling until 
receipt of semi-annual reports. 

11/13/72 District Court order (Judge Cox) closing 
case pending any further action. 

At this point in time, the Amite County 
School District, pursuant to court approval, 
continued the sex-segregated student assignment 
plan and continued submitting semi-annual 
reports, 

12/30/74 Justice Department and Amicus Curiae (NAACP 
Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.) moved 
court to discontinue Amite County student 
assignment plan on basis of sex; and Amicus 
noved Court to discontinue practice of 
assigning students to grade sections on 
basis of race. 

6/2/75 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals order commanding 
Amite County School Board to show cause within 
thirty days why Title II §§203(a) and 401(b) 
of the Education Amendments of 1974 do not 
mandate discontinuance of student assignment 
by sex and why school districts should not 
be enjoined from assigning students to grade 
sections on basis of race. 

After the June 2, 1975, Fifth Circuit order, 
settlement negotiations between HEW and Amite 
County School Board were held, but reached an 
impasse. 

9/21/77 - Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion cited 
as United States v. Amite County School District, 
560, F.24 619 (5th Cir. 1977), reversing July 
14, 1970 District Court findings and recommenda- 
tion and ordering Amite County School Board to 
fashion a remedy as required by the Equal Edu- 
cational Opportunity Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. §§81701, 
et. seq. 

  

Page 4 

 



  

10/7/17 

10/18/77 

10/19/77 

1/7/81 

Amite County School District filed its motion 
for court approval of its desegregation plan 
which was attached to the motion as exhibit 
"A" pursuant to 1969 HEW recommendations. The 
plan was to be effective January 2, 1978. 

Amite County School District filed its motion 
for approval of an amendment to the desegregation 
plan which amendment provided for October 15 and 
April 15 reports to be submitted to the Court, the 
Justice Department and Amicus Curiae (NAACP 
Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.). 

District Court order (Judge Russell) approving 
plan as requested, except effective date ordered 
to be on or before November 1, 1977, instead 
of January 2, 1978. 

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals order terminating 
requirement for submitting semi-annual reports 
to Fifth Circuit. This order, however, did not 
affect the requirement to send the October 15 and 
April 15 reports to the district court, the 
Justice Department and Amicus Curiae. 

Page 5 

 



   ccble 45. Age by Race, Spanish Origin, and Sex for Counties: 
. : [For meaning of symbols, see Introduction. For defirétions of terms, see oppendixes A and 8) 

1980 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  

  

  
  

  
  

  

  

  
  
  
  
  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  
  

  

  
  

  

  

  
  

Roce Roce 

Spanish origin! Spanish origin! 
Counties Tord White Bock Tord White Bock 

Mole Female Mole Female Nols Femole Mole Female Mode Fernie Mole Female Woe Femole Mole Female 

ADAMS ALCORN 

1778 2 317 397 WIM 82 10150 127 He] 1S 974 17 062] 14 334 1S 12% 1576 1 86% ba J 04 1529 1593 649 646 878 £85 n 13 1 305 1 186 1 104 1 005 192 176 é 3 330 332 133 143 197 128 2 4 274 272 233 23 39 46 2 ] Tyoor 293 307 120 138 173 169 2 1 270 234 217 193 S51 4) - 1 2 yeors 308 302 134 ° 133 173 169 2 5 259 230 232 201 25 7 1 - 3 yeors 301 300 135 113 165 184 1 2 247 228 203 196 44 32 1 - 4 yeoors —-— 297 312 127 139 170 173 4 1 258 zn 219 192 13 30 2 4 510 9 yeors _ cu 1596 1594 731 679 842 1 18 10 1437 191 1264 1102 164 178 3 7 S years 288 308 136 130 152 177 1 2 263 244 224 210 7 33 - - é yoors 290 295 144 127 146 167 3 1 262 244 240 209 21 3 1 2 7 years ._.. —— 344 284 156 115 186 In 3 2 299 . 255 260 213 M4 40 1 1 8 yvors _ we 332 340 148 156 184 182 5 5 306 250 263 212 42 3 |} 3 9 ysors ___. - 342 385 147 151 194 214 é - 307 296 277 258 30 34 - 1 10t0 14 years ______ staat Ci 1714 1678 m 715 939 958 19 161 1486 149] 1292 1254 166 186 13 10 LL I re EN 0 348 352 157 137 211 213 4 1 263 286 234 250 2 35 1 1 I YOOrS merce rrr n me ——— 32 328 147 160 174 166 3 4 294 294 256 252 37 4) 2 4 Vg AE Si Al OA 308 321 160 134 148 184 5 2 284 284 245 245 37 38 3 1 LT Rn TARE Bl 355 9 144 146 209 173 4 3 32 302 290 253 31 45 1 - i RRS MICRA 341 358 163 134 197 22 3 6 303 283 267 254 32 26 é 4 Tas ci RR RI 1 969 1 941 848 846 1120 1073 7 14 1 479 1 380 1 301 1175 174 181 7 5 SL AAR CU i ol 414 399 176 172 237 227 1 2 319 285 274 252 “ 32 2 1 Ls ee REE cu 426 387 180 134 244 194 2 2 332 295 302 250 2 45 2 - Yt A ER NAL 40) 409 174 177 227 231 3 4 299 267 26) 29 a7 37 - 2 IB yeoNs rere rn 378 388 165 167 213 220 1 2 262 277 225 236 3% 0 2 2 LT TR NN I Lo 350 358 153 159 197 199 - 4 267 236 239 208 28 27 i - 
2010 24 years .___. == 1 501 1 760 v2 807 708 951 12 13 1234 1.595 1 081 Tm 147 180 5 é ELL TRI A AE 2 PRT nz 372 160 155 157 216 1 5 239 252 209 218 2 nN - 2 RLY einen 252 358 159 154 133 204 2 2 230 251 208 214 2 37 2 1 OS ry WOES a. 1 384 1 594 781 804 599 7684 10 1 1191 1 282 1 054 11125 131 154 2 5 ISVS eee dae 1150 1 295 710 728 437 562 2 8 1 261 1 310 173 1 194 81 103 é f RIP YIHS ss in ea mec 920 1 080 582 6M 335 456 é 7 1 057 1132 968 1 045 87 80 é 5 AID BB WUHY ems santa anne 830 1 052 555 588 272 442 2 9 910 937 850 850 54 85 S é L510 43 YOY oer nmi semana 805 1 042 492 572 310 448 8 10 57 830 737 763 57 64 3 é 
50 to 54 years . i 936 1177 437 644 297 509 5 é 779 804 7 738 51 66 3 3 55 10 ST YIONS cnnnnermenanenonmemmmnn 882 1 035 550 590 330 444 4 9 731 841 683 792 48 68 4 5 
60 to 64 years ___ 761 934 444 514 315 418 é 8 662 824 609 760 52 63 5 3 BS SET YUE oe eer ern eee 617 810 332 427 285 382 4 5 578 795 526 693 52 100 4 3 
70 to 74d years __.. e 491 474 246 362 245 3n y 4 3 503 698 459 625 4 72 3 7 FO IVES ccna. 339 502 156 261 182 24) 2 3 313 502 75 443 38 59 - 2 
BO BE yews oon ree 164 329 n 151 93 177 3 3 187 300 144 70 px} 2 4 - 85 years ond over ow 120 nn 48 129 72 148 1 1 104 206 89 18] 15 25 - 1 
18 yeors ond over 11 628 14 307 é 718 7 534 4 890 6 742 73 1021 10 816 12 289 9837 110M 944 1215 53 61 62 years ond over -— 2 14) 3 14 1 084 1 634 1 056 1 506 21 20 2 041 2 9468 1 840 2 435 200 329 14 4 
65 years ond over - 1731 2 592 853 1 330 877 1 259 17 15 | 645 2 501 1 493 2 212 172 285 n 13 TT RR A AEA RN SEAL Nd 26.9 30.1 30.8 33.4 23 26.7 239 279 29.4 32.5 30.3 33.2 23.2 26.1 328 U0 

AMITE ATTALA 

Yl PUB o..... oom eine 6 492 6 877 3 4 3 542 3 0s 33% 55 55 9 550 10 318 S77 6 276 3 760 4 018 54 82 Heder SYOOIS nce nme msm mmm nm 589 564 272 249 318 34 3 5 756 750 355 374 400 374 5 3 Under | year -— 118 116 52 43 bb 53 1 2 170 154 78 78 92 76 - 2 1 yoor i a — 1no 109 57 54 52 55 - - 153 139 77 67 76 72 - - WBE ese ini rd ee acd 125 109 54 49 70 &0 2 1 138 153 60 bal 78 74 2 be BEES lenin hn iw de ri 126 132 59 47 67 84 - 1 141 © 145 76 78 85 85 - - 4 yeors __. 110 8 50 3 &0 62 - 1 154 139 64 72 8 67 3 1 SwSyaes oo 550 53® 248 221 302 318 5 2 798 815 400 412 397 402 é i BE RI I RIN LL 107 i 48 42 59 53 1 - 135 132 64 64 70 68 - - CVOIY i i isin ie nm 9 57 47 54 52 1 1 171 149 82 88 89 . 60 2 1 7 yeors _._. ——e 103 112 42 44 él 68 1 - 159 174 7 96 80 78 2 2 BROT er een 115 17 55 a &0 74 1 1 150 161 75 76 75 85 - 1 Syears 114 116 45 45 48 71 1 - 183 199 100 88 83 ml 2 - 
703 643 280 251 423 392 8 7 966 88% 474 418 490 470 7 9 138 118 49 56 89 82 - 2 206 181 126 85 80 96 - - 143 134 59 53 84 81 2 3 183 175 7v 81 103 94 1 2 
138 \27 5 57 87 70 2 1 191 167 $2 79 99 88 - 1 
126 140 50 37 76 103 3 1 198 170 89 85 108 84 4 2 
158 124 n 48 87 76 1 - 188 196 88 88 100 108 2 4 
71 458 284 239 387 419 5 S 1 001 8464 520 144 480 417 é ] 
148 132 54 50 94 82 i 2 211 197 112 8y 98 108 3 3 
140 154 61 56 79 100 - 3 227 178 106 95 121 83 - - 
145 146 67 48 78 98 2 - 21 174 107 101 104 72 |] 1 
120 12 42 37 78 75 - - 194 144 108 b&b 88 80 1 3 118 112 &0 48 58 64 2 - 158 169 89 93 & 74 1 1 
500 498 259 238 24) 260 3 5 684 664 382 355 300 307 4 4 Lu SA A 105 103 52 42 53 81 - B 154 150 ™ 79 74 70 1 2 VUES oe iene nivmesemas orien 88 96 48 83 40 43 - 3 153 133 93 70 80 62 1 - 25 to 29 yeors Tae 413 435 253 231 180 204 $ 1 578 618 354 349 214 267 2 2 30 to 34 yeors -e 354 397 229 237 135 159 2 4 567 616 397 398 169 217 2 4 ng CT ET RR SRR SR 294 iQ 179 191 115 152 4 2 505 498 33 345 162 153 3 2 40 to 44 yeors — ie 305 301 190 194 115 107 2 1 447 49) 308 314 139 173 4 3 45 10 49 yeors __. 266 320 181 184 85 133 |] 3 428 499 304 339 123 156 1 1 

50 to 54 years ——m 307 345 199 196 108 169 2 3 480 562 345 392 135 169 i 4 55 to 59 years - Nn 358 189 215 132 143 2 2 Abd 551 325 376 138 175 1 3 60 to 64 yeors 288 402 183 244 104 157 3 2 457 599 309 424 146 174 1 é 85 to 49 years 349 335 204 223 145 11 2 2 472 591 an 407 151 184 [] 5 70 to 74 years 245 282 144 7 121 m 1 4 399 509 270 353 129 156 4 3 75 to 79 years \77 232 9 135 86 97 3 é 296 373 197 266 "9 107 - 1 80 to B4 yeors 80 103 44 62 34 4) |] - 132 244 87 \77 45 65 - - BSwors onl over oe ee SO 102 3 59 27 43 - 1 118 182 75 133 43 49 1 - 
18 Ors ONE OWIl oc se i wm 4 217 4 697 2 412 2 687 1 744 2 024 36 3% é 38) 7 312 422 4 787 215% 2 506 32 42 62 ywory ond over __. 1 090 1 288 617 792 472 493 9 14 1 845 2.255 1115 1 589 550 643 12 14 
65 years ond over 921 1 054 S08 450 413 403 7 13 1 417 1 89% 950 1 33% 467 561 1 y Machan __ 27.7 eR 327 37.6 219 24 4 27.5 31.5 299 C34 us 40.7 21.6 25.7 35 330 
                        

26—106 MISSISSIPPI Appendix II 
GENERAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 

    
  and 

  
 



  

AMITE COUNTY OF 19P0 PROJECTED POPULATION AND LABOR_ FORCE. 

PO PULAT LOU nde suse nt essen an en —nn   0.0 FEMALES Fa 

cwmnwTOTAL oe 

C.11450 0.0 BIRTH RATE 0.006777 

  

NON=WHITE___ cua wel OTA ne NON-WHITE __. 
ERS LJ % 8 - ese \ 

MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE - FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE _FEMALE TOTAL 
AGE 

Q
e
 
N
O
O
O
 

2
 

'
e
 

e
e
 

os 
8 

0 
8 

© 
0 

0
8
 

N
O
C
 

A
R
N
T
 
N
O
N
O
O
 

8
 

D
c
 
O
N
 
O
N
 

| 
P
O
O
 
O
N
S
 
I
F
 

| 
P
O
 

O
v
 

3 
C
O
N
 
0
 

® 
eo 

FF 
wv 

0 
* 

8 
e 

o
O
 

N
e
 
O
O
 

Mh 
—
f
O
M
O
 

—
O
~
 
N
O
P
 

2 
O- D
-
N
Y
 

br 
ON 
O
S
I
 

— 
f
=
 

IN 

——— — — — 

a
 

h
e
 

®@ 
@& 

o
o
 

0 
8 

0 
eo 

@ 
8 

N
O
 
C
O
M
M
 

F
E
O
 
O
R
 

C
A
N
O
N
 

O
M
e
 

O
W
N
 

=
 

FO 
E
E
N
 

N
O
U
N
 

  C
O
C
O
 
C
O
N
 
O
M
 
L
2
O
N
I
N
 

®T 
¢ 

& 
& 

& 
© 

3 
8 

rr 

O
N
C
 

O
-
 
N
N
N
O
 

N
0
0
 

V
2
 

O
r
M
O
N
 

O
0
0
 

O
v
 

r
r
 

r
e
 

O
O
 
N
N
N
 

M
i
e
 

I
M
 

e
e
 

8
°
 

0
°
 

0 
0 

0
8
 

F
O
N
 

O
O
T
I
T
N
N
 

O
N
O
 

O 
O
N
O
 
O
N
 

«— 

L
e
 
O
r
O
U
M
I
I
O
 0
 

® 
® 

® 
0 

© 
© 

oo 
® 

© 
0 

o 

M
I
N
N
 

I
N
N
O
 
R
-
N
O
 

T
N
I
V
 

O
O
 

O
M
 
M
M
e
 

T
e
 

-
—
e
-
 

C
O
L
T
 
N
M
A
 

O
N
 

® 
@ 

2s 
@e 

® 
8a 

® 
® 

@ 
P
O
 

C
O
M
I
N
 

O
N
O
 

N
 

© 
«— 

M
e
 

O
M
 

I 
N
M
N
I
N
M
 

N
O
N
I
 

r
e
e
 

c
o
c
o
c
o
o
N
C
o
C
c
o
o
o
o
o
0
 

® 
oo 

9 
&® 

& 
® 

8 
& 

© 
FF 

@ 
"
+
 

8 
0 

F
O
 
O
O
o
 

A 
X
e
 
C
O
N
O
O
I
N
9
 

V
O
I
 

N
O
C
 

o
r
 

C
a
 
R
R
O
D
 
3
 

—
O
M
M
0
 

U
N
 
C
O
N
 
C
O
C
 
O
V
 

r
e
y
-
y
-
 

O
O
O
O
 
C
O
O
N
M
C
L
O
O
Q
O
O
O
C
 

® 
© 

® 
& 

® 
© 

oo 
6 

® 
OS 

9 
® 

O° 
6
"
 

F
O
 
M
I
C
O
 
N
A
M
 

O
n
a
 
P
V
N
 

O
N
 

N
O
 
M
O
 

3 
O
F
 
0
N
O
o
M
m
o
e
 mn 

V
W
N
O
 

O
T
 
T
M
F
 

N
M
I
 

N
S
 

C
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
C
 

O
C
C
T
 
O
C
O
D
 

0O 
© 

8 
8 

® 
5 

0 
05 

06 
0 

0
 

8
%
 
s
e
e
 

C
O
M
 

O
M
I
I
V
 
O
h
a
d
 

O 
V
N
 

O
N
O
A
R
D
r
=
 

0
0
0
0
 
D
N
V
 

O
M
 

V
N
R
 

O
W
N
 

2 
O
M
I
M
 

N
M
I
 
N
I
 

O
D
O
C
 

O
O
O
O
0
0
0
o
0
 

e 
oo 

®» 
®» 

BB 
& 

® 
oo 

© 
¢ 

uw 
"
O
°
 

eo 
0 

N
X
 

A
N
I
D
 
O
I
O
N
I
N
 
I
O
 
M
T
N
 

C
e
O
 

O
O
O
N
O
M
 
O
T
N
 

L
a
 

La 
TT 

Aa 
La 

ad 
mk 

ad 
ml 

nd 
snl 

oud 
aul 

ond 
od 

O
O
O
O
 

C
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
0
0
0
0
T
 

® 
© 

9g 
# 

* 
® 

gg 
* 

& 
& 

a 
°° 

8 
0 

P
O
U
R
S
 

— 
O
N
I
N
 
N
N
 

mm 
N
I
C
 
N
e
 

L
O
N
I
 

TT 
O
M
e
 
O
N
O
 
I
N
S
 

F
Y
I
 
M
I
N
 

r
T
 
T
T
T
 

D
O
O
O
D
O
D
O
D
O
D
0
0
0
0
0
 

« 
® 

® 
9 

° 
@ 

@ 
" 
"
8
"
 

"
0
 

e
e
 

O
r
e
 

M
r
 

F
O
 
O
N
T
 
"
M
N
O
 

L
O
N
I
 

M
N
O
 

OF 
O
0
0
 

v— 
3 
I
r
n
 

N
O
O
N
E
 

A
I
N
A
 

v
v
 

v— 
e
=
O
u
U
 

NI 
N
e
m
 

O
O
0
D
D
O
O
0
O
D
O
O
L
O
O
O
D
O
 

. 
=. 

.
 

.
 

ee 
=
 

. 
» 

L
J
 

-
 

-
 

”
 

-
 

ee 

N
O
O
O
 
I
M
O
 

D
o
 
O
M
I
T
O
 

A
J
O
D
V
D
N
N
N
A
M
O
C
 
D
O
D
O
 

O
 

E
N
N
N
I
O
U
 

O
N
I
N
 

I
N
S
 

v= 
© 

= 
r
v
 

J
v
 

v= 

S
T
O
I
C
 
I
I
I
 

I
T
O
 
T
O
I
 

=
 
O
N
A
N
 

TS 
I
V
D
O
 
O
N
O
 

CI 
I 

I 
OE 

IO 
IE 

I 
BB 

BE 
BN 

AE 
B
y
)
 

O
N
O
 
N
O
W
N
O
N
O
W
V
N
O
W
D
 

—
e
 
N
N
T
 

T
N
A
 

O
 

5123.7 1428.8 1017.8 974.6 2720.3 2403.4 

3131.3 

3542, 0 303%.0 3335.0 6492.0 5877.0 13369,0 1702.5 

6273.0 

3454.0   

of 1992.4 13369.0 

5123.7 13369.0 

AMITE COUNTY OF 1985 PROJECTED POPULATION AND LABOR FCRCE,   

LABOR FORCE... “+ Ea TEN 2 eae RE I RR AR 

0.07032 1375.75 FEMALES Fo 

YOSAL Lo 

1400.79 0.1184¢ 

WHITE ce aa HION=WHITE 

BIRTH RATE   

ER f 3 §.3 Sp WRITE __ ___ NON-WHITE __. 
FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE AGE 

80D 
AJ 

<f 
Whe 

O
O
 

Le 
A 

oe 
8 

8 
§ 

© 
& 

& 
= 

& 
0
0
 

PF 
BON 

NM 
=
O
 

+ 
O- 

N
O
 

= 
O
N
 
T
O
0
O
D
—
 

o
D
 

~~ 
[
a
 
T
r
 

o
e
 

os 
0 

v
e
 

w
o
 
o
s
e
 

OP 
V
O
M
 

e 

1 
H ' 

A
E
D
 

60 
O- 
v
3
 

LN 
On 

O
M
A
 

2 
® 

& 
» 

& 
oo 

0
&
8
 

® 
v
e
 

0 

O
O
 

O
v
 
C
Q
O
 

Oo 
N
N
 
O
N
O
 

v— 
O
w
 

0 
MN 

L
a
x
 

AX 
do oalog 

aSIaV 
og 

onl 
od 

| | 

T
N
E
 
N
I
N
-
 
O
N
O
 

T
 

® 
8 

8 
& 

0 
0 

& 
0 

¢ 
8 

N
I
 

M
O
O
 
M
a
 
O
O
M
 

V
I
O
 

I 
O
N
O
 
N
O
 
O
N
 

O
e
.
 

IC 
J 

SE 
a 

Val 
ad 

"ale 
elen] 

Val 
® 

& 
8 

8 
o 

& 
® 

8 
& 

0 
OO 

M
O
N
O
N
 

O
 

OC 
O
O
o
 

O
T
 
N
O
O
O
 
T
N
O
 

N
e
 

C
O
M
M
O
N
 
I
O
O
T
 

eo 
® 

5 
&@ 

® 
a 

8 
0 

© 
0
0
 

O
M
N
I
 

MM 
—
 

3 
T
C
 

0
0
 

V
N
R
 

O
 
O
T
 
M
M
A
 

—
e
r
-
J
r
-
-
r
-
r
-
r
e
e
-
 

O
I
A
 

M
N
O
O
O
N
O
 

© 
@ 

¢ 
® 

@ 
¢ 

© 
8&8 

& 
8 

O° 

N
A
A
N
 

O 
N
N
R
 

0
0
 
0
0
 

O
M
I
M
 

O
F
 
M
M
 

y
 

N
O
U
N
 

O
M
I
 
O
N
T
 
V
O
I
 

O
F
 

N
I
M
N
O
N
 

* 
ee 

&» 
&
 

9
 

*
 

-
 

8
 

L
J
 

=
 

.T 
®
 

@
 

O
V
 

T
O
O
 
N
I
—
 

O
N
D
 

«— 
0 

W
E
T
 N
T
O
O
V
O
O
 

M
I
N
N
 

ee 
0
©
 

C
N
C
 

N
I
N
O
 
N
O
N
 

N
W
N
 

O 
C
O
N
D
O
 

E
E
 

M
A
O
 
C
O
M
O
 

V
N
I
—
 
O
V
O
 

® 
®
 

& 
®
@
 

®
 

® 
®
 

5
 

*
 

8
 

0
 

©
 

8
 

0° 
"
0
 

M
O
O
I
 

E
I
N
 
N
N
O
 

M
O
C
 
=
n
»
 
O
N
C
 
C 
S
M
i
-
0
c
 OO 

O
N
A
N
 
O
0
2
 

M
N
 
O
L
I
N
 

M
I
N
T
 

. 
® 

LJ 
ee 

* 
@ 

ee 
eo 

»
 

ea 
oo 

=
 

LJ 
LJ 

LN 

Q
I
N
 

AN 
O
N
O
 

O
 

V
C
O
N
N
 
JT 
O
M
A
N
O
S
 

0
X
 
3
0
0
0
 

O
W
I
 

O
0
3
 
M
M
n
.
 
N
u
u
n
 
ng 

N
C
I
 

O
N
O
 
O
I
R
O
 

O
r
u
,
 

. 
& 

@° 
ee 

& 
8 

oo 
oo 

ee 
® 

5 
5 

8 
* 

0 

A
N
O
N
 

A
N
 
O
N
E
 
N
O
T
 

0
0
 

N
N
N
 

QO 
= 
D
N
 

O
N
O
 

N
N
O
 

Nn 

M
N
 
U
M
N
 r
e
 
T
T
T
 

O
C
C
 

—
X
L
 
N
I
N
 

D> 
D
I
N
O
 
N
O
 

® 
® 

© 
g 

® 
&@ 

o 
5 

8 
8 

© 
@ 

8 
& 

& 
0 

O
N
M
 

O
C
O
N
E
E
 
M
N
I
D
D
 
r
e
e
 

O
D
N
 

NOV 
—
~
O
U
0
 

> 
V
O
 

— 
V
N
 

SS 
S
e
a
l
a
v
l
 

atonal 
od 

oun 
od 

—
 
—
 

M
r
 
O
N
D
A
 

O
2
2
 

N
o
 
O
0
C
™
N
 

os 
@
 

9
 

ee 
8 

0
 

e
o
 

ec 
®
 

-
 

®
 

&
 

=
 

8
 

O 
X
M
 
M
i
 
F
O
N
T
 

TT 
NTO 

M
N
O
 

M
E
A
N
T
 
$
0
 
O
O
O
O
 
NT 

O
N
O
 

AIO 
AI 

A
N
 

— 
v
e
 

= 
NIN 

A
U
N
 

M
I
A
N
 

=
I
 
O
N
M
O
M
O
N
D
 IO
 

O
 

® 
® 

8 
8 

8 
@ 

@e 
@ 

© 
8 

& 
8 

© 
8 

°
2
®
 

D
O
O
N
N
O
 

I
O
 

0
0
0
 

I
T
N
D
O
 

0 

I
A
N
 
O
O
M
 

DON 
N
R
O
 
R
N
 

A
N
N
A
N
 

O
N
I
N
I
 
N
I
N
N
 

r
T
 

r
r
 

J
O
 

I
O
 
I
I
I
 
I
O
I
O
I
O
I
O
 

—
 
=
A
 
M
T
 
F
O
 OR
-
O
0
 

1
1
 

BE 
BE 

A 
3 

U
S
 

OE 
uN 

o
w
n
 

WN 
O
N
O
 

WN 
O
N
O
W
N
O
W
N
 

‘ 
M
I
M
E
 
N
N
O
 

O
R
N
A
 

O
N
O
 

00 
00PM 

| 
v
-
 
r
N
 

—
 
M
O
Y
 

! 
: 

1515.1 1005.9 1067.5 2756.4 2582.6 5339.0 

$339.0 

2R9r.€ 3243.0 6379.9 6820.5 1320045 1750.5 3577.6 3481.6 

aad}   2073.6 3265.6 6141.6 1320045 7058.9 

5339.0 13200.5 

  

Appendix III