Court Opinion

ID: 9443688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:27:33.759477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:34.315715
License: Public Domain

POPE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The judgment here discloses that on* March 10, 1952, defendant appeared with his counsel for sentence. It is apparent-that at that time sentence was pronounced,, to commence on that date.1 However, the judgment was not signed, dated or entered’ until March 14. It follows from Criminal-Rule 32(b), 18 U.S.C.A., that the notices of appeal, filed March 11, was premature.
*407But the notice was still on file on March 14, and there is no doubt or uncertainty as to what sentence, or judgment, it was intended to reach. For reasons similar to those suggested in Luckenbach SS. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 533, 47 S.Ct. 186, 71 L.Ed. 394, I think we should hold that the notice of appeal, though premature, was not a nullity. See the dictum in Richards v. United States, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 354, 192 F.2d 602, 604. I think the defect and irregularity here is of the sort we are required to disregard by Criminal Rule 52(a).

. The judgment reads in part: “On this 10th day of March, 195'2, came the Attorney for the Government and the defendant appeared in person and by counsel; It is Adjudged that the defendant has been convicted on a verdict of guilty * * *. It is Adjudged: That the defendant is guilty as charged * * * an<j that he be confined in the Federal Jail at Fairbanks, Alaska, for a period of six (6) months, such sentence to commence on the 10th day of March, 1952;. * * *"