Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google
News Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America v. Michael Kokin, Gustave Dave Lange and Eastern Firearmscompany, Appellants
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. - 365 F.2d 595
Argued May 24, 1966.Decided July 29, 1966
Eugene F. Hayden, Parlin, N.J. (Hayden & Gillen, Parlin, N.J., Karl R. Meyertons, South River, N.J., on the brief), for appellants.
Mark E. Litowitz, Asst. U.S. Atty., Newark, N.J. (David M. Satz, Jr., U.S. Atty., Newark, N.J., on the brief), for complainant-respondent.
Before HASTIE and GANEY, Circuit Judges, and WRIGHT, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The appellants, dealers in firearms, have been convicted of dealing in and transferring machine guns, as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5848(2), without such registration and payment of taxes as the law requires. See 26 U.S.C. 5811, 5814, 5801(a)(2), 5802. The case presents a threshold question of jurisdiction because notice of appeal was filed after conviction but before sentences were imposed and judgment entered. However, we are now satisfied that the prematurity of the notice of appeal need not prevent us from considering and deciding these appeals on their merits. Cf. Lemke v. United States, 1953, 346 U.S. 325, 74 S.Ct. 1, 98 L.Ed. 3; 8 Moore Federal Practice, 2d ed. 1965, 37.05(2).
On the merits, the principal question presented by this appeal is whether, in the circumstances of this case, the sale and transfer of an M-1 carbine, itself not a machine gun, together with all the parts necessary to convert it into an M-2 carbine, a type of machine gun, constituted such a transfer of a machine gun as the statute contemplates and regulates.
In the circumstances elaborated in the opinion of the district court and for the reasons there stated we are satisfied that, to the extent found by the district court, the appellants have violated the law and subjected themselves to the fines imposed.
The judgment will be affirmed.