United States v. Michael Kokin, Gustave Dave Lange and Eastern Firearms Company

Third Circuit

United States v. Michael Kokin, Gustave Dave Lange and Eastern Firearms Company

365 F.2d 595

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJuly 29, 1966

Docket15704_1

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 365 F.2d 595 (United States v. Michael Kokin, Gustave Dave Lange and Eastern Firearms Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Michael Kokin, Gustave Dave Lange and Eastern Firearms Company, 365 F.2d 595 (3d Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

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-l 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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-l 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

365 F.2d 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michael-kokin-gustave-dave-lange-and-eastern-firearms-ca3-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack