(concurring):

Having dissented in United States v. Perez, I consider myself bound by the result in that case and therefore concur in the present opinion.

We have affirmed in open court because we believe appellant’s challenge to the constitutionality of one of the statutes under which he was convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 894, forbidding “the use of any extortionate means * * * to collect or attempt to collect any extension of credit,” is foreclosed by our recent decisions in United States v. De Stefano, 2 Cir., 429 F.2d 344 (1970), and United States v. Perez, 2 Cir., 426 F.2d 1073, cert. granted, 400 U.S. 915, 91 S.Ct. 175, 27 L.Ed.2d 154 (1970). Moreover, we did not see any merit to his other contentions.