opinion: LEMKE v. UNITED STATES.
  No. 109.
  Decided October 12, 1953.
  Bailey E. Bell for petitioner.
  Acting Solicitor General Davis, Assistant Attorney General Olney, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
  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 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 júdgment 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.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.