Court Opinion

ID: 9443971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:36:41.00655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:39.783187
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.
This case was tried in the district court upon stipulation of fact and one point of law. Appellant admitted catching two salmon with a gill net at about 6:30 P.M., Thursday, May 22, 1952, in violation of a regulation of the Secretary of the Interior closing the Taku Inlet to fishing from 6:00 P.M. Thursday to 6:00 A.M. Monday of each week, and he rested his defense upon the sole ground that “the regulation [prohibiting personal use fishing with gill net, seine or trap during a closed period 1] is invalid because prohibited by statute [in re ‘the taking of fish for local food requirements or for use as dog feed’,2]” That was the only question presented to this court on appeal. And we gave that question our attention. Subsequent to the oral argument in which the limitation on the appeal was emphasized by appellant’s *250counsel, and after we had reached our conclusion on the question presented, counsel for appellant filed a memorandum raising for the first time an additional point, i.e., that there was “no published regulation prohibiting fishing on Thursday evening, May 22, 1952,”3 [italics ours] and therefore, the complaint did not charge an offense.
The regular weekend closed periods were set out by Congress to extend from 6:00 P.M. Saturday to 6:00 A.M. Monday of each week,4 but the weekend closed period in the Taku Inlet was legally extended5 to begin at 6:00 A.M. Friday by regulation published in the Federal Register. Title 50, C.F.R. § 119.4(a). A second extension of the Taku Inlet closed period for the weekend which was to commence at 6:00 P.M. each Thursday was announced on May 19, 1952 6 but had not been published in the Federal Register as required by the Administrative Procedure Act7 when the appellant performed the act in suit. Accordingly, the act complained of was not an offense8 at the time it was performed.
Rule 12(b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Title 18 U.S.C.A., provides in part as follows:
“ * * * Lack of jurisdiction or the failure of the indictment or information to charge an offense shall be noticed by the court at any time during the pendency of the proceeding.”
We, therefore, now take note of this jurisdictional defect.
Since the complaint fails to state an offense, the petition for rehearing is granted, the case is resubmitted upon the record, briefs, and the oral argument heretofore had, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss it.9
Reversed and remanded for dismissal.

. Title 50 C.F.R. § 102.51.

. Title 48 U.S.C.A. §§ 232 and 234.

. “Additional Memo by Appellant”, p. 1.

. Title 48 U.S.C.A. § 234.

. Authorized by Title 48 U.S.C.A. §§ 234 and 221. See, also, Title 50 C.F.R. § 102.3a.

. Regulatory Announcement 35, Announcement No. 2, was announced by the Regional Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service at Juneau, Alaska, under authority delegated to him by the Secretary of the Interior. Title 50 C.F.R. § 102.3a.

. Title 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 1003 and .1001(c).

. See Title 48 U.S.C.A. §§ 222 and 226.

. See Sonnenborg v. United States, 9 Cir., 1920, 264 F. 327.