```
                                
      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit
                                


No. 97-1564

                PRODUCTORA DE GAS CARBONORO, S.A.,
                      Plaintiffs, Appellees,

                                v.

                       M/V ALLISON, ET AL.,
                      Defendants, Appellees.
                      ____________________
                                
                       HANS ISBRANDTSEN,
                           Appellant.
                                


          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                
                FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
                                
       [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                


                             Before
                                
                     Boudin, Stahl and Lynch
                        Circuit Judges.
                                


     Hans Isbrandtsen on Memorandum of Law in Support of his Appeal
to Reverse the District's Court's Order of Contempt, pro se.
     Jose F. Sarraga and Jorge L. Arroyo on brief for appellees M/V
ALLISON, in rem, her engines, machinery, tackle, apparel, etc., One
(1) Iso-Tank with liquid anhydrous ammonia (NH3) and Six (6) tank
trailers with liquid carbon dioxide (CO2), in rem, TODD'S MARINE,
LTD., ISBRANDSTEN MARINE SERVICES, INC., JOHN DOE INSURANCE, XYZ
INSURANCE COMPANIES and SUE DOE, in personam.




May 26, 1998



            Per Curiam.  Hans Isbrandtsen was found in contempt
    of court and fined $500 for failing to comply with a court
    order directing the release of certain cargo from the M/V
    Allison.  He filed a timely notice of appeal.
              The imposition of the $500 fine could not have been
    coercive   the classic indication of a civil contempt finding
      as at that time Isbrandtsen had already complied, if tardily,
    and so could not "purge" himself by complying.  Rather, the $500
    fine, payable to the court, was clearly to punish Isbrandtsen
    for his past behavior and to vindicate the court's authority,
    the classic indication of a finding of criminal contempt.  SeeHicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 631-32 (1988) (describing the
    critical features of the two types of contempt).  Either a
    party or a nonparty can immediately appeal a criminal contempt
    adjudication imposing sanctions in a pending case.  See 15B
    Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper,
    Federal Practice and Procedure � 3917 (2d ed. 1991).  We,
    therefore, reject the contention of appellee Productora de Gas
    Carbonico, S.A. ("GASCARB") that we lack jurisdiction over
    Isbrandtsen's appeal because he failed to file a notice of
    appeal after the subsequent entry of final judgment disposing
    of all the claims against the Allison.  Similarly, we reject
    GASCARB's contention that the payment of the $500 fine has
    mooted this appeal.
              Nonetheless, we affirm the finding of contempt.  In
    the first place, Isbrandtsen's failure to procure a transcript
    of the contempt hearing, see Fed. R. App. 10(b) (outlining the
    appellant's duty), precludes a reasoned review of that finding. 
    See Moore v. Murphy, 47 F.3d 8, 10-11 (1st Cir. 1995).  And, in
    any event, we conclude that Isbrandtsen's contention that the 
    court order was "transparently invalid" is frivolous.
              Affirmed.
```