USCA1 Opinion

                                

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]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, 485 U.S. 624, 631-32 (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, 47 F.3d 8, 10-11 (1st Cir. 1995).  And, in

    any event, we conclude that Isbrandtsen's contention that the 

    court order was "transparently invalid" is frivolous.

              Affirmed.