opinion: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Joey Lee MOON, Appellant.
  No. 73-1334.
  United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
  Submitted Oct. 17, 1973.
  Decided March 6, 1974.
  Ralph Edwards and John J. Bahnak, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
  Donald J. Stohr, U. S. Atty., and Thomas Earl Loraine, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
  Before LAY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and EISELE, District Judge.
  G. THOMAS EISELE, District Judge, Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.
  PER CURIAM.
  The defendant, Joey Lee Moon, was charged by juvenile information with possession of a firearm which had not been registered to him pursuant to the relevant provision of 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (d), which reads:
  It shall be unlawful for any person—
  ******
  (d) to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
  The district court convicted him of violating such provision following a bench trial. Moon brings this timely appeal contending that § 5861(d), as applied, violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process. We reject this contention and affirm.
  The facts disclose that the police, while investigating a motor vehicle accident, observed and removed a sawed-off shotgun from Moon’s automobile. Moon claimed that he found the gun and that he kept it for two weeks to “show off.” On these facts, the trial court rendered a guilty verdict.
  . On appeal, Moon argues that since he had found an abandoned weapon, any prosecution against him for possession of the weapon would be unreasonable and, therefore, a denial of due process. We disagree.
  In order to convict Moon, the government had to establish the following elements: (1) that defendant knowingly possessed the firearm; (2) that the object possessed was in fact a firearm; and (3) that such firearm was unregistered. United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 612, 91 S.Ct. 1112, 28 L.Ed.2d 356 (1971) (Brennan, J., concurring). The government made such showing here. The prosecution needed to prove no more.
  In United States v. Johnson, 441 F.2d 1134, 1136 (5th Cir. 1971), the court stated, in response to a charge that the statute was unconstitutionally vague, that “possession of such firearm, if unregistered, whether abandoned or not, is prohibited.” Moreover, in Milentz v. United States, 446 F.2d 111 (8th Cir. 1971), we said that “specific intent to violate the law [§ 5861(d)] is not a necessary element of the crime,” but we stressed that the act of possession of the weapon must be “willing and knowing.” Id. at 113, 114. The prosecution made a showing that Moon was not merely an innocent finder but rather a possessor of the weapon who kept the shotgun in his automobile for two weeks for “kicks” and to “show off” to his friends.
  Thus, we hold the conviction proper and the appeal without merit.
  Affirmed.
  EISELE, District Judge, concurs in the result.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.
choices: not Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachussets Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South South Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming Virgin Puerto District Guam not Panama