OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/12th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 6

Chap. VI.—An Act to increase the Navy of the United States.
Act of March 3, 1813, ch. 54. Act of Feb. 27, 1815, ch. 62. Ships of war to be built.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States shall be, and he hereby is authorized, as soon as suitable materials can be procured therefor, to cause to be built, equipped and employed, four ships to rate not less than seventy-four guns, and six ships to rate forty-four guns each.
Complement of officers on board the seventy-fours.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That there shall be employed on board each of the said ships of seventy-four guns each, one captain, six lieutenants, one captain, one first lieutenant and one second lieutenant of marines, one surgeon, one chaplain, one purser and three surgeons’ mates.
Warrant officers on board the seventy-fours. Petty officers.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That there shall be employed in each of the said ships, carrying seventy-four guns, the following warrant officers, who shall be appointed by the President of the United States: one master, one second master, three masters’ mates, one boatswain, one gunner, one carpenter, one sail-maker, and twenty midshipmen; and the following petty officers, who shall be appointed by the captains of the ships respectively in which they are to be employed, viz. one armorer, six boatswains’ mates, three gunners’ mates, two carpenters’ mates, one sail-maker’s mate, one cooper, one steward, one master at arms, one cook, one coxswain, one boatswains’ yeoman, one gunner’s yeoman, one carpenter’s yeoman, ten quarter gunners, eight quarter masters, and one clerk; and one schoolmaster, also to be appointed by the captain.One schoolmaster.
Complements of men on board the seventy-four gun ships.Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the crews of each of the said ships of seventy-four guns, shall consist of two hundred able seamen, three hundred ordinary seamen and boys, three sergeants, three corporals, one drummer, one fifer, and sixty marines.
Pay of the schoolmaster.Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That the pay of the schoolmaster shall be twenty-five dollars per month and two rations per day.
Specific appropriation of 2,500,000 dollars.Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That the sum of two millions five hundred thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby appropriated, out of any monies in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the building and equipping of the aforesaid ships of war.
Approved, January 2, 1813.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/12th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 60

Chap. LX.—An Act altering the time for holding the District Court in the District of Maine.
District Court of Maine. Act of November 28, 1811, ch. 2.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the session of the district court for the district of Maine, by law appointed to be holden at Wiscasset on the first Tuesday in March, shall, from and after the first day of April next, be holden at Wiscasset on the last Tuesday of February annually, any law to the contrary notwithstanding.
Approved, March 3, 1813.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/12th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 61

Chap. LXI.—An Act vesting in the President of the United States the power of retaliation.
The President may cause retaliation to be made.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all and every case, wherein, during the present war between the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, any violations of the laws and usages of war, among civilized nations, shall be or have been done and perpetrated by those acting under authority of the British government, on any of the citizens of the United States or persons in the land or naval service of the United States, the President of the ​United States is hereby authorized to cause full and ample retaliation to be made, according to the laws and usages of war among civilized nations, for all and every such violation as aforesaid.
President may retaliate upon the British for injuries done by the Indians.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That in all cases where any outrage or act of cruelty or barbarity shall be or has been practised by any Indian or Indians, in alliance with the British government, or in connexion with those acting under the authority of the said government, on citizens of the United States or those under its protection, the President of the United States is hereby authorized to cause full and ample retaliation to be done and executed on such British subjects, soldiers, seamen or marines, or Indians, in alliance or connexion with Great Britain, being prisoners of war, as if the same outrage or act of cruelty or barbarity had been done under the authority of the British government.
Approved, March 3, 1805.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/12th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 8

Chap. VIII.—An Act approving the Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Secretary at War, to ascertain and settle the exterior line of the public land at West Point, in the state of New York.
Act of Jan. 22, 1811, ch. 7. Report of the commissioners adopted and approved of.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the report of the commissioned appointed by the Secretary at War to settle the exterior line of the public land at West Point, in the state of New York, with the adjoining proprietor, conformably to an act to authorize the Secretary at War to ascertain and settle, by the appointment of commissioners, the exterior line of the public land at West Point with the adjoining proprietor, be and the same is hereby approved.
Approved, January 5, 1813.
# United States Hirshberg v. Cooke

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
336 U.S. 210
United States Hirshberg v. Cooke
Argued: Jan. 13, 1949. --- Decided: Feb 28, 1949
Mr. John J. O'Neil, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
Mr. Peyton Ford, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Hughes v. Gault U S

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
271 U.S. 142
United States Hughes v. Gault U S
Argued: April 22, 1926. --- Decided: May 3, 1926
[Statement of Case from pages 142-144 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Charles E. Hughes, of New York City, Herbert Pope, of Chicago, Ill., Benjamin M. Price, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and E. Barrett Prettyman, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 144-146 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Donovan, for appellee.
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States House of Representatives Concurrent Resolution No. 99

* related portals: Czech lands, United States Congress.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Layout 2
| 115th CONGRESS 2d Session | H. CON. RES. 99 |
Expressing the sense of Congress on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the proclamation of independence of Czechoslovakia, the 25th anniversary of the independence of the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, and reaffirming the bonds of friendship and cooperation between the United States and the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 19, 2018
Mr. Blum (for himself, Mr. Visclosky, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Barton, and Mrs. Dingell) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Code/Title 28/Chapter 81

* Section 1251
* Section 1252
* Section 1253
* Section 1254
* Section 1255
* Section 1256
* Section 1257
* Section 1258
* Section 1259
* Section 1260
# United States Code/Title 28/Chapter 81/Section 1257

* Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States.
* For the purposes of this section, the term “highest court of a State” includes the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
# United States Code/Title 28/Chapter 83/Section 1293

[§ 1293. Repealed. Pub. L. 87–189, § 3, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 417]
Section, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 929; Mar. 17, 1959, Pub. L. 86–3, § 14(b), 73 Stat. 10, provided for appeal from supreme court of Puerto Rico to court of appeals for first circuit. See section 1258 of this title.
A subsequent section 1293, added Pub. L. 95–598, title II, § 236(a), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2667, which related to bankruptcy appeals, did not become effective pursuant to section 402(b) of Pub. L. 95–598, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.
# United States Code/Title 28/Chapter 83

CHAPTER 83—COURTS OF APPEALS
| Sec. |
| 1291 | Final decisions of district courts. |
| 1292 | Interlocutory decisions. |
| [1293 | Repealed.] |
| 1294 | Circuits in which decisions reviewable. |
| 1295 | Jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. |
| 1296 | Review of certain agency actions. |
Amendments
1996—Pub. L. 104–331, § 3(a)(2), Oct. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 4069, added item 1296.
1984—Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(29)(C), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3359, struck out item 1296 “Precedence of cases in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit”.
1982—Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 127(b), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 39, added items 1295 and 1296.
1978—Pub. L. 95–598, title II, § 236(b), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2667, directed the addition of item 1293, “Bankruptcy appeals”, which amendment did not become effective pursuant to section 402(b) of Pub. L. 95–598, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.
# United States v. Lawson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 164
United States v. Lawson
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
Mr. John Scott, Jr., for the appellee.
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Lawton

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Lawton."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* United States v. Lawton (46 U.S. 10)
* United States v. Lawton (110 U.S. 146)
# United States v. Le Baron (60 U.S. 73)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
60 U.S. 73
United States v. Le Baron
THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of Alabama.
It was an action of debt upon the bond of a deputy postmaster at Mobile, signed Oliver S. Beers, the officer, and Charles Le Baron and George N. Stewart, his sureties.
The statement of the case contained in the opinion of the court renders it unecessary to recite the demurrers to the declaration and pleas, or the replications and rejoinders which were in the record. The point in controversy was found in the following charge given to the jury:
Upon this evidence the court charged the jury, that the recital in the condition of the bond sued on, 'whereas Oliver S. Beers is deputy postmaster at Mobile,' relates to the office he held when the bond was signed, and could not refer to a term of office not yet commenced.
The court further charged and said, that, according to the strict propriety of language, the said recital relates to the precise period of time when the recital was written, (speaking as it does of the present time,) and not to the time when it was executed by its delivery, which the admitted proof shows took place on a subsequent day.
That at the time said bond was signed, the said Beers was not in office under his appointment, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and therefore they, the jury, ought to find for the defendant.
To which charge of the court the plaintiffs, by their attorneys, then and there excepted, and asked the court to charge the jury that the bond related to, and was intended to provide, a security for the faithful discharge by Beers of the duties of the office of deputy postmaster at Mobile, under the appointment by and with the consent of the Senate; which charges the court refused to give; and plaintiffs then and there excepted, and asked the court to charge the jury that it was for them to determine to which term of said office the said bond related, and that the recital in it, that 'Beers is deputy postmaster at Mobile,' must be considered as made at the time when the bond was delivered and executed; which charge the court also refused to give; and the plaintiffs then and there excepted to such refusal, and prayed the court to sign and seal this their bill of exceptions, which is done accordingly, in term time.
JOHN GAYLE, Judge. [SEAL.]
The case was argued by Mr. Cushing (Attorney General) for the United States, and by Mr. Stewart for the appellee.
Mr. Justice CURTIS delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Le Baron

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United States v. Le Baron."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* United States v. Le Baron (60 U.S. 73)
* United States v. Le Baron (71 U.S. 642)
# United States Reports/Volume 511

* 511 U.S. 1 (1994) Victor v. Nebraska
* 511 U.S. 39 (1994) United States v. Granderson
* 511 U.S. 79 (1994) Powell v. Nevada
* 511 U.S. 93 (1994) Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of the State of Oregon
* 511 U.S. 117 (1994) Ticor Title Insurance Company v. Brown
* 511 U.S. 127 (1994) J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.
* 511 U.S. 164 (1994) Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A.
* 511 U.S. 202 (1994) McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde and River Don Castings, Ltd.
* 511 U.S. 222 (1994) Boca Grande Club, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Company, Inc.
* 511 U.S. 224 (1994) United States v. Irvine (511 U.S. 224)
* 511 U.S. 244 (1994) Landgraf v. USI Film Products
* 511 U.S. 298 (1994) Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc.
* 511 U.S. 318 (1994) Stansbury v. California
* 511 U.S. 328 (1994) City of Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund
* 511 U.S. 375 (1994) Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America
* 511 U.S. 383 (1994) C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown
* 511 U.S. 661 (1994) Waters v. Churchill
* 511 U.S. 825 (1994) Farmer v. Brennan
# United States Reports/Volume 512

* 512 U.S. 1 (1994) Romano v. Oklahoma
* 512 U.S. 26 (1994) United States v. Carlton
* 512 U.S. 43 (1994) City of Ladue v. Gilleo
* 512 U.S. 61 (1994) Department of Taxation and Finance of New York v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc.
* 512 U.S. 79 (1994) O'Melveny Myers v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
* 512 U.S. 92 (1994) Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Company Sa
* 512 U.S. 107 (1994) Livadas v. Bradshaw
* 512 U.S. 136 (1994) Ibanez v. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy
* 512 U.S. 154 (1994) Simmons v. South Carolina
* 512 U.S. 186 (1994) West Lynn Creamery Inc v. Healy
* 512 U.S. 218 (1994) MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. American Telephone &Telegraph Company
* 512 U.S. 246 (1994) Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris
* 512 U.S. 267 (1994) Director Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor v. Greenwich Collieries
* 512 U.S. 298 (1994) Barclays Bank Plc v. Franchise Tax Board of California Colgate-Palmolive Company
* 512 U.S. 339 (1994) Reed v. Farley
* 512 U.S. 374 (1994) Dolan v. City of Tigard
* 512 U.S. 415 (1994) Honda Motor Company, Ltd. v. Oberg
* 512 U.S. 452 (1994) Davis v. United States (512 U.S. 452)
* 512 U.S. 477 (1994) Heck v. Humphrey
* 512 U.S. 504 (1994) Thomas Jefferson University v. Shalala
* 512 U.S. 532 (1994) Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall
* 512 U.S. 573 (1994) Shannon v. United States
* 512 U.S. 594 (1994) Williamson v. United States (512 U.S. 594)
* 512 U.S. 622 (1994) Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
* 512 U.S. 687 (1994) Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet
* 512 U.S. 753 (1994) Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc.
* 512 U.S. 821 (1994) International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell
* 512 U.S. 849 (1994) McFarland v. Scott
* 512 U.S. 874 (1994) Holder v. Hall
* 512 U.S. 967 (1994) Tuilaepa v. California
* 512 U.S. 997 (1994) Johnson v. Grandy
* 512 U.S. 1249 (1994) Price v. North Carolina
# United States Reports/Volume 513

* 513 U.S. 1 (1994) In re Whitaker
* 513 U.S. 5 (1994) Austin v. United States
* 513 U.S. 10 (1994) United States v. Shabani
* 513 U.S. 18 (1994) U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership
* 513 U.S. 30 (1994) Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp.
* 513 U.S. 64 (1994) United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.
* 513 U.S. 88 (1994) Federal Election Commission v. NRA Political Victory Fund
* 513 U.S. 106 (1994) Reich v. Collins
* 513 U.S. 115 (1994) Brown v. Gardner
* 513 U.S. 123 (1994) Nebraska Department of Revenue v. Loewenstein
* 513 U.S. 138 (1995) Interstate Commerce Commission v. Transcon Lines
* 513 U.S. 150 (1995) Tome v. United States
* 513 U.S. 177 (1995) Illinois v. Kentucky
* 513 U.S. 179 (1995) Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer
* 513 U.S. 196 (1995) United States v. Mezzanatto
* 513 U.S. 219 (1995) American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens
* 513 U.S. 251 (1995) NationsBank of North Carolina, N.A. v. Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co.
* 513 U.S. 265 (1995) Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson
* 513 U.S. 298 (1995) Schlup v. Delo
* 513 U.S. 352 (1995) McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co.
* 513 U.S. 364 (1995) Duncan v. Henry
* 513 U.S. 374 (1995) Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
* 513 U.S. 414 (1995) Milwaukee Brewery Workers' Pension Plan v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co.
* 513 U.S. 432 (1995) O'Neal v. McAninch
* 513 U.S. 454 (1995) United States v. National Treasury Employees Union
* 513 U.S. 504 (1995) Harris v. Alabama
* 513 U.S. 527 (1995) Jerome Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.
* 513 U.S. 557 (1995) Anderson v. Green
* 513 U.S. 561 (1995) Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc.
* 513 U.S. 1301 (1994) In re Dow Jones & Co., Inc. (Rehnquist, C.J., in chambers)
* 513 U.S. 1303 (1995) O'Connell v. Kirchner (Stevens, J., in chambers)
# United States Reports/Volume 515

* 515 U.S. 1 (1995) Nebraska v. Wyoming (515 U.S. 1)
* 515 U.S. 29 (1995) North Star Steel Company v. Thomas
* 515 U.S. 39 (1995) Garlotte v. Fordice
* 515 U.S. 50 (1995) Reno v. Koray
* 515 U.S. 70 (1995) Missouri v. Jenkins (515 U.S. 70)
* 515 U.S. 177 (1995) Ryder v. United States
* 515 U.S. 189 (1995) City of Milwaukee v. Cement Division, National Gypsum Company
* 515 U.S. 200 (1995) Adarand Constructors v. Peña
* 515 U.S. 277 (1995) Wilton v. Seven Falls Company
* 515 U.S. 291 (1995) Metropolitan Stevedore Company v. Rambo
* 515 U.S. 304 (1995) Johnson v. Jones
* 515 U.S. 321 (1995) Kimberlin v. Quinlan
* 515 U.S. 323 (1995) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Schleier
* 515 U.S. 347 (1995) Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis
* 515 U.S. 389 (1995) Witte v. United States
* 515 U.S. 417 (1995) Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno
* 515 U.S. 450 (1995) Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Chickasaw Nation
* 515 U.S. 472 (1995) Sandin v. Conner
* 515 U.S. 506 (1995) United States v. Gaudin
* 515 U.S. 528 (1995) Vimar Seguros Reaseguros, S. A. v. M/V Sky Reefer
* 515 U.S. 557 (1995) Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc.
* 515 U.S. 582 (1995) National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
* 515 U.S. 593 (1995) United States v. Aguilar
* 515 U.S. 618 (1995) Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc.
* 515 U.S. 646 (1995) Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
* 515 U.S. 737 (1995) United States v. Hays Louisiana
* 515 U.S. 753 (1995) Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette
* 515 U.S. 819 (1995) Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia
* 515 U.S. 900 (1995) Miller v. Johnson
* 515 U.S. 951 (1995) Jd Netherland v. Tuggle
* 515 U.S. 1152 (1995) Doe John v. Kirchner Otakar
* 515 U.S. 1301 (1995) Foster v. Gilliam
* 515 U.S. 1304 (1995) Penry v. Texas
* 515 U.S. 1307 (1995) Steve Rodriguez v. Texas
* 515 U.S. 1309 (1995) McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Company