Cite as U.S. v. Kokin, 365 F.2d 595 (3d Cir. 1966)

                    UNITED STATES of America

                               v.

Michael KOKIN, Gustave Dave Lange and Eastern Firearms Company,
Appellants.

                           No. 15704.

          United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

                      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.
section 5848(2), without such registration and payment of taxes as
the law requires.  See 26 U.S.C. sections 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, section
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.