346 U.S. 324

73 S.Ct. 1178

97 L.Ed. 1634

Julius ROSENBERG and Ethel Rosenberg
v.
UNITED STATES of America. No, ____. Special Term 1953. Supreme Court of the United States June 19, 1953 djQ PER CURIAM. The motion for reconsideration of the question of the Court’s power to vacate Mr. Justice DOUGLAS’ stay order and hear oral argument is denied. djQ Mr. Justice BLACK, dissenting. Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER desires that it be noted that he too would deny the motion to reconsider the power of this Court to review Mr. Justice DOUGLAS’ order to stay the execution, but not because he thinks the matter is free from doubt. See his dissenting opinion in Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 590, 63 S.Ct. 793, 800, 87 L.Ed. 1014, in connection with Lambert v. Barrett, 157 U.S. 697, 15 S.Ct. 722, 39 L.Ed. 865, and Carper v. Fitzgerald, 121 U.S. 87, 7 S.Ct. 825, 30 L.Ed. 882. Lemke v. United States [74SCt1,346US325,98LEd3] 74 S.Ct. 1 346 U.S. 325 98 L.Ed. 3 LEMKE v. UNITED STATES.

No. 109.

Oct. 12, 1953.

PER CURIAM.

This case is here on a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which dismissed an appeal as premature. Rule 37(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., provides that ‘An appeal by a defendant may be taken within 10 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from * * *.’ On March 10, 1952, petitioner was sentenced to six months in jail after a jury verdict finding him guilty of violating § 65—5 81 of the Alaska Compiled Laws Ann. 1949. On March 11, 1952, petitioner filed his notice of appeal. The judgment, however, was not entered until March 14, 1952. Since no notice of appeal was filed after that time, the appeal was dismissed as premature, Judge Pope dissenting.

The notice of appeal filed on March 11 was, however, still on file on March 14 and gave full notice after that date, as well as before, of the sentence and judgment which petitioner challenged. We think the irregularity is governed by Rule 52(a) which reads ‘Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.’

Accordingly we grant the petition for certiorari, reverse the judgment below, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.