*1 ad- contentions We have examined other McNealy, Atty., Robert Fair- U. S. J. which, plaintiff by in view of vanced what banks, Alaska, appellee. for irrelevant, and said, we as regard we have MATHEWS, Before POPE, BONE and view, they not In our be need discussed.. Judges. Circuit any ma- genuine issue as there was no to fact, proper the case was for terial- and PER CURIAM. judgment., entry summary of a the Appellant, Ralph Lemke, G. was indicted appealed from judgment The is for violating Compiled Alaska Laws Anno- Affirmed. 1949, 65-5-81, tated was arraigned, plead- § guilty, ed not and, was tried February on

27, 1952, guilty. was' found judgment A sentencing appellant was entered on March 14, 1952. that From judgment only —the judgment in entered the appeal case—no was However, taken. 11, 1952, on March STATES. UNITED v. LEMKE days three before the judgment entered, was 13342. No. appellant took purported what to be ap- an Appeals of States Court United peal from judgment a 10, entered on March Circuit. Ninth 1952. There was no judgment- such 31, 1953. March Therefore appeal the is dismissed. CL 14, May Rehearing 1953. Denied Prickett v. Consolidated Liquidating Corp., Cir.,

9 180 F.2d 8.

POPE, Judge Circuit (dissenting). judgment The here discloses that on* 10, 1952, March defendant appeared with his counsel for sentence. It is apparent- that at that time sentence pronounced,, was to commence that on date.1 However, the judgment signed, was not dated or entered’ until March 14. It follows from Criminal- 32(b), Rule U.S.C.A., 18 that the notices appeal, of 11, filed March premature. was 1. The fendant sel; * * 10th torney has been It day March, judgment *. for appeared is It convicted of Adjudged the is Adjudged: reads Government in on a person 195'2, that in verdict part: the defendant That came the and and “On by of the the de guilty coun this At de at that on fendant ^[*] (6) Fairbanks, ^[*] months, the 10th he *" is be guilty confined such sentence Alaska, day as charged in of for a the March, to commence period Federal * * * of six 1952;. Jail an<j

407 March on file still on the notice was But uncertainty as doubt or 14, no and there is in- it sentence, was judgment, or what to to similar reasons For reach. to tended Co. v. Luckenbach SS. suggested in those 186, 533, S.Ct. States, 47 272 U.S. United that hold we 394, should I think L.Ed. 71 was though premature, appeal, notice of the Richards in nullity. the dictum See a not 354, 192 U.S.App.D.C. States, 89 v. United irreg- and 602, the defect think 604. I F.2d required to arewe ularity here the sort is of 52(a). Rule

disregard by Criminal v. DARCY rel. STATES ex

UNITED HANDY, Warden, et al. 10447.

No. Appeals Court of States

United Circuit. Third 7,

Argued 1952. Jan. 1,

Reargued 1952. Dec. 24, 1953. March

Decided 28, March 1953. Amended

As April 29, 1953.

Rehearing Denied