[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 97-1564

PRODUCTORA DE GAS CARBONORO, S.A., Plaintiffs, Appellees,

v.

M/V ALLISON, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees.

HANS ISBRANDTSEN, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Boudin, Stahl and Lynch Circuit Judges.

Hans Isbrandtsen on Memorandum of Law in Support of his Appeal to Reverse the District's Court's Order of Contempt, pro se. Jose F. Sarraga and Jorge L. Arroyo on brief for appellees M/V ALLISON, in rem, her engines, machinery, tackle, apparel, etc., One (1) Iso-Tank with liquid anhydrous ammonia (NH3) and Six (6) tank trailers with liquid carbon dioxide (CO2), in rem, TODD'S MARINE, LTD., ISBRANDSTEN MARINE SERVICES, INC., JOHN DOE INSURANCE, XYZ INSURANCE COMPANIES and SUE DOE, in personam.

May 26, 1998

Per Curiam. Hans Isbrandtsen was found in contempt of court and fined $500 for failing to comply with a court order directing the release of certain cargo from the M/V Allison. He filed a timely notice of appeal. The imposition of the $500 fine could not have been coercive the classic indication of a civil contempt finding as at that time Isbrandtsen had already complied, if tardily, and so could not "purge" himself by complying. Rather, the $500 fine, payable to the court, was clearly to punish Isbrandtsen for his past behavior and to vindicate the court's authority, the classic indication of a finding of criminal contempt. SeeHicks v. Feiock,

(1988) (describing the critical features of the two types of contempt). Either a party or a nonparty can immediately appeal a criminal contempt adjudication imposing sanctions in a pending case. See 15B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure 3917 (2d ed. 1991). We, therefore, reject the contention of appellee Productora de Gas Carbonico, S.A. ("GASCARB") that we lack jurisdiction over Isbrandtsen's appeal because he failed to file a notice of appeal after the subsequent entry of final judgment disposing of all the claims against the Allison. Similarly, we reject GASCARB's contention that the payment of the $500 fine has mooted this appeal. Nonetheless, we affirm the finding of contempt. In the first place, Isbrandtsen's failure to procure a transcript of the contempt hearing, see Fed. R. App. 10(b) (outlining the appellant's duty), precludes a reasoned review of that finding. See Moore v. Murphy,

(1st Cir. 1995). And, in any event, we conclude that Isbrandtsen's contention that the court order was "transparently invalid" is frivolous. Affirmed.