PER CURIAM.
Defendant Robinson in this case appeals from an order which denied his motion for reconsideration of the reduction of pretrial bail. He had previously been arrested and indicted for possessing, with intent to distribute, one-fourth ounce of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1976). His bond was set for $25,000.
The motion for reduction of bond was heard by the United States Magistrate and denied. The Magistrate found that Robinson had not adequately shown full-time employment or that if released, he might not engage in criminal activity. Robinson had presented evidence that he was engaged to be married, had resided in the Dayton, Ohio, area for seven or eight years and owned a home there, that he had no prior criminal record, and that he was employed to do construction and remodeling.
The United States presented by the assertion of a United States Attorney that Robinson had in the presence of an FBI Agent threatened to “take care” of the witness who had been present at the cocaine distribution incident. On the District Judge’s adoption of the Magistrate’s report, Robinson filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the District Judge, whereupon he filed this appeal.
On the first hearing of this matter, this court remanded the case for a statement of reasons as to why the bail reduction was denied. These reasons having been furnished by the District Judge, the current appeal was submitted on briefs.
On the record as it stands before us, we believe there is need for a further remand to the District Court to hold an evidentiary hearing and determine from evidence presented there whether or not appellant made a threat to commit an assault upon a government witness. Since Robinson contends that he made no such threat, this determination should be made upon the basis of sworn testimony. In the event the physical threat is substantiated, the denial of reduction of bond is affirmed. In the event it is not substantiated, the bond will be reduced to $3,000 cash or security.
What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the court's ruling on an issue arising out of an alternative dispute resolution process (ADR, settlement conference, role of mediator or arbitrator, etc.) favor the appellant?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".