¶1*691Charles Neustein, Miami Beach, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.
¶2George Bolles, Miami, Fla., for defendants-appellees.
¶3Before THORNBERRY, CARSWELL and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
¶5This appeal in a school desegregation case must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings under recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and of this Court.1
¶6On August 29, 1969 the District Court entered an order approving an “Interim Plan” for desegregation approved by the Dade County School Board and ordered further studies for the development of a final unitary school system to be effective no later than September 1, 1970 in Cause No. 69-1020-Civ.-CA, styled Pate et al., v. Dade County School Board, etc. et al., 303 F.Supp. 1068. Appellant here attacks only a segment of the “Interim Plan” approved by the Court below; nevertheless it is apparent from the record before us that, without passing on the merits of the present limited appeal, the cause must be reversed and remanded for immediate compliance by the lower Court with changed decisional law.
¶7Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 1969, 396 U.S, 19, 90 S.Ct. 29, 24 L.Ed.2d 19; United States v. Hinds County School Board, 417 F.2d 852, (5th Cir., 1969), and Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School System (and consolidated cases en banc), 419 F.2d 1211, mandate that “effective immediately … school districts … may no longer operate a dual school system based on race or color,” and that they must “begin immediately to operate as unitary school systems within which no person is to be effectively excluded from any school because of race or color.” As this Court said in Singleton, “the tenor of the decision in Alexander v. Holmes County, is to shift the burden from the standpoint of time for converting to unitary school systems. The shift is from a status of litigation to one of unitary operation pending litigation.”
¶8We reverse and remand this case with directions to the District Court to enter an order in conformity with all terms, *692provisions and conditions (including times) specified by this Court in Singleton, supra, parts I and III.
¶9The mandate in this cause shall issue forthwith. No stay will be granted pending petition for rehearing or application for certiorari.
¶10Reversed and remanded with directions.