OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/14th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 101

Chap. CI.—An Act to authorize the extension of the Columbia Turnpike Road within the district of Columbia.
The company authorized to extend the road from the line of the District to Rock Creek, &c.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Columbia Turnpike Road Company, incorporated by an act of the general assembly of Maryland, passed the sixth day of January, one thousand eight hundred and ten, entitled “An act to incorporate a company to make a turnpike road from near Ellicott’s lower mills towards Georgetown, in the district of Columbia,” be, and they are hereby, authorized and empowered to extend the said road from its intersection with the line of the district of Columbia to Rock Creek, near Georgetown, and to locate and complete the same in the nearest and most practicable direction, and in the manner required by the twelfth section of the act of the assembly of Maryland hereinbefore mentioned.
Tolls.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the said company may demand, and receive, the same tolls as are allowed for a like distance by the act of assembly of the state of Maryland, incorporating the said company, and shall possess and enjoy the same privileges, and be subject to the same limitations, pains, and penalties, as by the said act are prescribed, enjoined and directed: Provided always, and be it further enacted,Proviso; the road to be extended within five years, &c. That if the said company shall fail or neglect to extend, locate, and improve, the said road in the direction, and in the manner, authorized and required by this act, within five years, to commence from the first day of May next ensuing the passage of this act, then, and in that case, the authority and privileges hereby granted shall be, and they are hereby declared to be, forfeited and withdrawn, and this act shall cease and be of no effect.
Approved, March 3, 1817.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/14th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 103

Chap. CIII.—An Act respecting the assessment and collection of the direct tax.
Where appeals have been taken and not legally acted on, &c., the Secretary of the Treasury shall direct the appeals to be acted on by the principal assessor, &c. Act of Jan. 9, 1815, ch. 21.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases in which appeals have been taken, and the same shall not have been legally acted on by a principal assessor, in any collection district, in regard to the enumerations, valuations, or revisions, of property, subject to the direct tax, the Secretary of the Treasury, shall be, and he is hereby, authorized to direct the said appeals to be acted on by the principal assessor of such collection district, and such appeals shall be conducted, as nearly as may be, in conformity with the provisions of the act “to provide additional revenues for defraying the expenses of government, and maintaining the public credit, by laying a direct tax upon the United States, and to provide for assessing and collecting the same,” passed the ninth day of January, one thousand eight hundred and fifteen, so far as respects the direct tax imposed in that year, and with the provisions of an Act of April 26, 1816, ch. 82.act supplementary thereto, passed the twenty-sixth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, so far as respects the direct tax imposed in that year.
Deeds to be acknowledged by collectors, &c.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all deeds for real estate, sold for taxes by any designated collector, or by the collector for the District of Columbia, shall be made, executed, and acknowledged, by such collector, or proved in due form; and for every such deed the purchaser, or grantee, shall pay to the said collector, for his use, the sum of one dollar.
5000 dollars appropriated.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That to defray the expenses authorized by this act, there is hereby appropriated a sum not exceeding five thousand dollars, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Approved, March 3, 1817.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/14th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 104

Chap. CIV.—An Act making appropriations for carrying into effect certain Indian treaties, and for other purposes.
Specific appropriations for carrying into effect, treaties made with various Indian nations.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of defraying the expenses which may arise in carrying into effect the treaty made between the United States and the tribes of Indians called the Ottowas, Chippewas, Pottowatomies, Chickasaws, Cherokees, and Chocktaws, that is to say: with the Ottowas, Chippewas, and Pottowatomies, at St. Louis, on the twenty-fourth of August, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen; with the Chickasaws, at the Chickasaw council house, on the twenty-eighth of September, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen; with the Cherokees, at Turkeytown, on the fourth of October, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen; with the Chocktaws, at the Chocktaw trading house, on the twenty-fourth of October, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, the following sums, to be paid out of any moneys in the treasury, not otherwise appropriated, be, and the same are hereby, appropriated, for the payment of the annuities to the Indians, as stipulated in the said treaties, that is to say: to the Ottowas, Chippewas, and Pottowatomies, one thousand dollars annually, for twelve years; to the Chickasaws, twelve thousand dollars annually, for twelve years, and to William Colbert, a Chickasaw chief, one hundred dollars annually, for and during his life; to the Cherokees, six thousand dollars annually, for ten years; and to the Chocktaws, six thousand dollars, annually, for twenty years.
Other sums appropriated to carry into effect other stipulations.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of carrying into effect certain other stipulations in the said treaties, the following sums be, and they are hereby, appropriated, to be paid out of any moneys in the treasury, not otherwise appropriated, to be paid out of any moneys in the treasury, not otherwise appropriated, that is to say: to carry into effect the treaty with the Chickasaws, as aforesaid, the sum of seven thousand three hundred and fifty dollars; to carry into effect the treaty with the Cherokees, the sum of five thousand dollars; and to carry into effect the treaty with the Chocktaws, the sum of ten thousand dollars.
Salary of second comptroller, auditors, &c.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That there be, and is hereby, appropriated the following sums, viz: For the salary of the second comptroller, three thousand dollars; for the salaries of four additional auditors, twelve thousand dollars; for the salaries of additional clerks in the offices of the second comptroller, and additional auditors, nine thousand dollars.
Approved, March 3, 1817.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/14th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 105

Chap. CV.—An Act to continue in force an act, entitled “An act relating to settlers on lands of the United States.”
Act of March 25, 1816, ch. 35. The act mentioned continued by Act of April 20, 1818, ch. 90.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That an act, entitled “An act relating to settlers on the lands of the United States,” passed the twenty-fifth of March, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, be, and the same is hereby, continued in force for one year from and after the passage of this act.
Approved, March 3, 1817.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/14th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 106

Chap. CVI.—An Act to amend the act, entitled “An act granting in land and extra pay to certain Canadian volunteers,” passed the fifth of March, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the ​1816, ch. 25. Six months’ service; and name on the muster roll a condition of bounty. Provided, &c. Act of March 5, 1816, ch. 25.passing of this act, no bounty in land shall be given to any Canadian volunteer, except where it shall appear that the full term of six months’ service shall have been performed in some corps in the United States service, and whose name shall appear upon the muster-rolls of such corps: Provided, That where it shall appear that the said term of service had not been performed by reason of wounds received in battle, or other disabilities, occasioned by the performance of his duty while in such corps, such claimant shall be considered as having performed the full term of service for which he had engaged.
Warrants to be located on lands offered at public sale. Act of March 5, 1816, ch. 25.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all warrants issued in pursuance of the act, entitled “An act granting bounties in land and extra pay to certain Canadian volunteers,” and which have not been located, and those which shall be issued in pursuance of this act, shall be located on such lands as have been offered at public sale according to law, and no other.
Rates of land to grades specified.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That instead of the bounty given in the act hereby amended, the following rates shall be given: For a colonel, four hundred and eighty acres; for a major, four hundred and eighty acres; for a captain, three hundred and twenty acres; for a subaltern, three hundred and twenty acres; to a non-commissioned officer, musician, or private, one hundred and sixty acres; and to the medical and other staff, in proportion to their pay.
Contrary provisions of former act repealed.Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That all such parts of the act hereby amended, as shall be inconsistent with, or contravene, the provisions of this act, are hereby repealed.
This and former act in force for a year.Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That this act, together with the act hereby amended, shall continue, and be in force, for the term of one year, and no longer.
Approved, March 3, 1817.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/14th Congress/1st Session/Resolution 8

VIII. A Resolution relative to the more effectual collection of the public revenue.
Collection of the revenue.Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is, required and directed to adopt such measures as he may deem necessary to cause, as soon as may be, all duties, taxes, debts, or sums of money, accruing or becoming payable to the United States, to be collected and paid in the legal currency of the United States, or treasury notes, or notes of the bank of the United States as by law provided and declared, or in notes of banks which are payable and paid on demand in the said legal currency of the United States, and that from and after the twentieth day of February next, no such duties, taxes, debts, or sums of money accruing or becoming payable to the United States as aforesaid, ought to be collected or received otherwise than in the legal currency of the United States, or treasury notes, or notes of the bank of the United States, or in notes of banks which are payable and paid on demand in the said legal currency of the United States.
Approved, April 30, 1816.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 3/14th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 100

Chap. C.—An Act to provide for the due execution of the laws of the United States within the state of Indiana.
Resolution of Dec. 11, 1816. All the laws of the United States, not locally inapplicable, to be in force in Indiana.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all the laws of the United States, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the state of Indiana as elsewhere within the United States.
The state to be a judicial district; a district court to be held therein, &c. Act of Sep. 24, 1789, ch. 20.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the said state shall be one district, and be called the Indiana District; and a district court shall be held therein, to consist of one judge, who shall reside in the said district, and be called a district judge. He shall hold, at the seat of government of the said state, two sessions annually, on the first Mondays in May and November, and he shall, in all things, have and exercise the same jurisdiction and ​powers which were, by law, given to the judge of the Kentucky district, under an act, entitled “An act to establish the judicial courts of the United States.” He shall appoint a clerk for the said district, who shall reside and keep the records of the court at the place of holding the same; and shall receive for the services performed by him, the same fees to which the clerk of the Kentucky district is entitled for similar services.
1000 dollars a year to the judge.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That there shall be allowed to the judge of the said district court the annual compensation of one thousand dollars, to commence from the date of his appointment, to be paid quarter yearly at the treasury of the United States.
Attorney for the district, &c.Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That there shall be appointed in the said district a person learned in the law, to act as attorney for the United States, who shall, in addition to his stated fees, be paid by the United States two hundred dollars as a full compensation for all extra services.
A marshal, &c.Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That a marshal shall be appointed for said district, who shall perform the same duties, be subject to the same regulations and penalties, and be entitled to the same fees, as are prescribed to marshals in other districts; and shall, moreover, be entitled to the sum of two hundred dollars annually, as a compensation for all extra services.
Approved, March 3, 1817.
# United States v. Dixon/Dissent Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Black
United States Supreme Court
347 U.S. 381
United States v. Dixon
Argued: March 12, 1954. --- Decided: April 5, 1954
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Mr., Justice JACKSON and Mr. Justice MINTON concur, dissenting.
Respondent was indicted for violating §§ 3116 and 3115 of the Internal Revenue Code by having in his possession sugar, wooden barrels, a metal cap, a heater box and mash pipe, all 'intended for use' in unlawfully evading liquor taxes. The District Court dismissed the indictment for failure to charge a crime. I agree. The indictment did clearly charge a violation of § 3116 which makes it 'unlawful' to hold property for such an intended use. But § 3116 does not make 'unlawful' possession a crime; the only sanction it contains is forfeiture. This Court nevertheless holds that possession for such an 'unlawful' purpose is made a crime by § 3115(b). That section does not of itself define a crime; it merely authorizes fine or imprisonment for violations of other provisions of the Act which do not themselves prescribe a 'special penalty.' Hence the general penalties of § 3115 cannot apply to violations of § 3116, because this latter section prescribes its own 'special penalty'-seizure and forfeiture of property. This forfeiture is plainly a penalty since there is no practical difference between taking a man's property by forfeiture and taking his money by a fine. And where Congress has specifically provided a property penalty I cannot agree to add a money penalty by dubious implication.
The accepted practice of construing criminal statutes narrowly should be especially appropriate here because of the unusual nature of the 'crime' involved. The Court's interpretation of § 3115 makes possession of innocent property, such as an automobile, a crime if the possessor intends to use it illegally, even if he has not done so. Guilt is made to depend wholly on what is within the defendant's mind. Congress may well have been unwilling to apply sanctions other than forfeiture to an unexpressed intention to do something that has not even been attempted.

## 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. Dominguez Benitez/Concurrence Scalia

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Scalia
​Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment.
I agree with much of the Court's opinion and concur in its disposition of the case. I do not, however, agree with its holding that respondent need not show prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence. Ante, at 83, n. 9.
By my count, this Court has adopted no fewer than four assertedly different standards of probability relating to the assessment of whether the outcome of trial would have been different if error had not occurred, or if omitted evidence had been included. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967) (adopting "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for preserving, on direct review, conviction obtained in a trial where constitutional error occurred); Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993) (rejecting Chapman in favor of the less defendant-friendly "'substantial and injurious effect or inﬂuence'" standard of Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946), for overturning conviction on collateral review); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 111–113 (1976) (rejecting Kotteakos for overturning conviction on the basis of violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), in favor of an even less defendant-friendly standard later described in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984), as a "reasonable probability"); id., at 693–694 (distinguishing the "reasonable probability" standard from the still yet less defendant-friendly "more likely than not" standard applicable to claims of newly discovered evidence). See generally Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434–436 (1995). Such ineffable gradations of probability seem to me quite beyond the ability of the judicial mind (or any mind) to grasp, and thus harmful rather than helpful ​to the consistency and rationality of judicial decisionmaking. That is especially so when they are applied to the hypothesizing of events that never in fact occurred. Such an enterprise is not factﬁnding, but closer to divination.
For purposes of estimating what would have happened, it seems to me that the only serviceable standards are the traditional "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "more likely than not." We should not pretend to a higher degree of precision. I would not, therefore, extend our "reasonable probability" standard to the plain error context. I would hold that, where a defendant has failed to object at trial, and thus has the burden of proving that a mistake he failed to prevent had an effect on his substantial rights, he must show that effect to be probable, that is, more likely than not.
# United States v. Doremus

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
249 U.S. 86
United States v. Doremus
Argued: Jan. 16, 1919. --- Decided: March 3, 1919
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Porter and Mr. W. C. Herron, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 86-89 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice DAY 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 Statutes at Large/Volume 5/28th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 14

Chap. XIV.—An Act making an appropriation of certain moneys in the Treasury for the naval service.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Appropriation for increase, &c. of the navy. That the sum of one hundred and sixteen thousand nine hundred and twenty-two dollars and seventy-nine cents, being the amount of proceeds of sales of certain condemned naval stores, be, and the same is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the increase, repair, armament and equipment of the navy, and wear and tear of vessels in commission.
Approved, April 22, 1844.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 5/28th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 117

Chap. CXVII.—An Act to authorize the entry of certain lands, occupied by the branch pilots of the port of New Orleans, and others, in the State of Louisiana.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,Allowed to enter certain lands in Louisiana. That Andrew Anderson, James T. Allen, George Benson, John Bailey, John R. Brown, Edward Bourguin, Jacob Baker, William Brownson, Robert Cooper, Edward Clarke, Thomas Cross, William C. Davis, Edward G. Davis, Ephraim Eldgridge, William Ellis, Dennis Finn, Nathaniel J. France, John Fowler, Robert Holliday, John Holland, David Johnston, Henry Johnson, James J. Jarvis, George Linton, Cyrus Lamontt, Cyrus Morgan, James W. Morgan, John Miller, Hans Myers, Erasmus Newman, John Parker, John Perrin, Asa Payson, Peter Robinson, James B. Read, Francisco Reeper, David Shepherd, Joseph Sepherd, William T. Smith, Christopher Scheltz, William Stevens, James Scott, John Swiler, James Tyson, William D. Tolbortt, William Taylor, Thomas J. Vanderslice, James B. Williams, Hiram B. Webster, James Kelly, William Denford, Edward Hansbury, Joseph E. Dunham, Charles Linguist, Gilbert Leonard and Joseph Lampade, all of the parish of Plaquemines in the State of Louisiana, or their legal representatives, be, and they are hereby, authorized to enter at the land office in the southeastern land district in said State, within six months after the passage of this act, section seventeen and lots one and two of section eighteen, in township twenty-three, of range thirty-three east, situated in said district, upon payment to the receiver of the said land office of one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre:Proviso. Provided, That at the time of making said entry, they shall five in the land office a survey and plat of the land entered, signed by them ​or their legal representatives, specifying thereon the extent of their several claims by occupancy; and that when the said entry shall be made, the same shall enureTo enure to their benefit severally. Proviso. to the benefit of such persons, severally, in the proportions and according to the quantities specified on said plat: And provided further, That this act shall not invalidate any rights which any other person, not herein named, may be entitled to under any law heretofore passed.
Approved, June 17, 1844.