OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/18th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 176

Chap. CLXXVI.—An Act explanatory of an act, entitled An act to provide for the extinguishment of the debt due to the United States by the purchasers of public lands, approved on the eighteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four.
The benefits, &c. of the act of May 18, 1824, ch. 88, extended to those who have obtained certificates of further credit for any quantity of land.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the benefits and privileges of the act of Congress, entitled “An act to provide for the extinguishment of the debt due to the United States, by the purchasers of public lands,” approved on the eighteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four, of which this act is explanatory, be extended to those persons who have obtained certificates of further credit, for any half-quarter section, or for any fractional section of land, under the provisions of any of the several laws for the relief of purchasers of public lands, referred to in the said act, of which this is explanatory.
All relinquishments of land executed under said act, to be filed with the register of the land office where purchased.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all relinquishments of land, which shall be executed under the provisions of the said act of the eighteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four, or under the provisions of this act, shall be filed with the register of the land office at which the land was purchased, any thing in the said act of the eighteenth of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four, of which this is explanatory, to the contrary notwithstanding.
Approved, May 26, 1824.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/18th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 182

Chap. CLXXXII.—An Act supplementary to “An act providing for the examination of titles to land in that part of the state of Louisiana situated between the Rio Honda [Hondo] and the Sabine river.”
Act of March 3, 1823, ch. 30. Act of March 26, 1824, ch. 175. The powers given to, &c., the register and receiver of the land office south of Red River, Louisiana, by the act of March 3, 1823, extended.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the powers given to, and duties required of, the register and receiver of the land office south of Red river, in the state of Louisiana, by the act of the third of March, eighteen hundred and twenty-three, entitled “An act providing for the examination of the titles to land in that part of the state of Louisiana, situated between [the] Rio Honda [Hondo] and the Sabine river,” be extended to all that tract of country, known and called by the name of “The Neutral Territory,” lying east of the present western boundary of Louisiana, and west of the limits to which the land commissioners have heretofore examined titles and claims to land in said state; and in the examination of claims to land within the aforesaid limits, the register and receiver shall, in all respects, be governed by the provisions of the aforesaid act.
The register and receiver to receive each 200 dollars.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the register and receiver of said land offices shall, severally, receive, as a full compensation for the duties required of them by this act, the sum of two hundred dollars, whenever they shall have finished the business required to be performed by them, by this act, and the act to which this is a supplement, and have forwarded their reports to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Approved, May 26, 1824.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/18th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 178

Chap. CLXXVIII.—An Act making an appropriation for the use of the library of Congress, and for furnishing rooms in the Capitol.
5000 dollars appropriated for the purchase of books.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of five thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any unappropriated money in the treasury, for the purchase of books, under the direction of the joint library committee, for the use of the library of Congress.
1546 dollars for the purchase of furniture.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the sum of fifteen hundred and forty-six dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any unappropriated money in the treasury, for the purchase of furniture for the new library.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the sum of three thousand ​For furnishing the rooms in the centre building of the Capitol.two hundred and eighty-nine dollars and fifty cents be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, for furnishing the rooms in the centre building of the Capitol, under the direction of the commissioner of the public buildings.
Approved, May 26, 1824.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4/18th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 177

Chap. CLXXVII.—An Act to allow further time to complete the issuing and locating of military land warrants.
The issuing of land warrants revived and continued in force for five years.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the authority granted to the Secretary of the Department of War, by an act, approved the twenty-fourth day of February, one thousand eight hundred and nineteen, to issue warrants for the military land bounties, to persons entitled thereto, shall be revived and continued in force for the term of five years.
Approved, May 26, 1824.
# United States v. Old Settlers

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
148 U.S. 427
United States v. Old Settlers

## 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. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
318 U.S. 206
United States v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company
Argued: Dec. 9, 1942. --- Decided: Feb 15, 1943
Mr. Valentine Brookes, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
Mr. Streeter B. Flynn, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for respondent.
Mr. Justice JACKSON 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. Olvera

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
154 U.S. 538
United States v. Olvera
Mr. Justice NELSON 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. Oklahoma

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
261 U.S. 253
United States v. Oklahoma
Argued: on Motion to Dismiss Jan. 2, 1923. --- Decided: Feb 19, 1923
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Riter, for the United States.
Mr. Wm. H. Zwick, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for the State of Oklahoma.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 254-256 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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. Biswell
## Concurring Opinion

    Blackmun

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
Supreme Court of the United States
406 U.S. 311
United States v. Biswell
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
No. 71-81. Argued: March 28, 1972 --- Decided: May 15, 1972
Warrantless search of locked storeroom during business hours as part of inspection procedure authorized by § 923 (g) of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which resulted in the seizure of unlicensed firearms from a dealer federally licensed to deal in sporting weapons held not violative of Fourth Amendment. Pp. 311-317.
442 F. 2d 1189, reversed and remanded.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, post, p. 317. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 317.
R. Kent Greenawalt argued the cause for the United States. On the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Petersen, Jerome M. Feit, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Kirby W. Patterson.
Warren F. Reynolds argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
John S. Edmunds and Melvin L. Wulf filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
# United States v. Blackfeather

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
155 U.S. 180
United States v. Blackfeather

## 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. Bitty

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
208 U.S. 393
United States v. Bitty
Argued: January 27, 1908. --- Decided: February 24, 1908
Attorney General Bonaparte and Assistant Attorney General Cooley for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 394 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Edward A. Alexander for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 395-397 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Harlan 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. Biwabik Mining Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
247 U.S. 116
United States v. Biwabik Mining Company
Argued: March 4, 5, and 6, 1918. --- Decided: May 20, 1918
Mr. Solicitor General Davis, of Washington, D. C., for the United states.
Mr. A. C. Dustin, of Cleveland, Ohio, for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 116-118 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 v. Bishop/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
120 U.S. 51
United States v. Bishop
This case does not differ in principle from that of U.S. v. Symonds, ante, 411, (just decided.) Bishop is now, and has been for more than four years, a lieutenant commander in the navy. By direction of the secretary of the navy, he assumed the duties of executive officer of the training ship Minnesota, on the eighteenth of April, 1884. During the period of such service that vessel was stationed in New York harbor, cruising and moving about under her own power. Her machinery and equipment were kept in order, and she was perfectly sea worthy, capable, upon short notice, of being used in a protracted cruise. The duties of Bishop, while such executive officer, were more arduous and confining than those of officers of similar grade upon vessels in foreign waters.
For the reasons given in U.S. v. Symonds, ante, 411, we are of opinion that the services of appellee were, within the meaning of section 1556 of the Revised Statutes, performed 'at sea,' and consequently it was rightly adjudged in the court below that he was entitled to sea pay, as established for officers of his grade, during the period of his service on the Minnesota. Judgment affirmed.

## 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. Biswell/Concurrence Blackmun

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Blackmun
* Dissenting Opinion Douglas
[p317] MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring in the result.
Had I been a member of the Court when Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72 (1970), was decided, I would have joined the respective dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice Black and of THE CHIEF JUSTICE, 397 U.S., at 79 and 77. I therefore concur in the result here.
# United States v. Kelly (342 U.S. 193)/Dissent Reed

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Reed
United States Supreme Court
342 U.S. 193
United States v. Kelly (342 U.S. 193)
Argued: Nov. 30, 1951. --- Decided: Jan 2, 1952
Mr. Justice REED, with whom The CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BLACK join, dissenting.
The 1938 Resolution refers only to holidays that 'relieved or prevented' work. It requires a gratuity payment to them equal to the regular daily wage. Where work is done, as by these per diem employees, no gratuity is 'provided by law.' Under the wage agreement, however, an employee working should be paid time and a half for holiday work-a premium of fifty per cent more than the gratuity paid to an employee who does not work.
The Government concedes that the wage agreement entitles the employees to this premium pay for work on holidays. In our opinion respondents are not entitled to any gratuity pay, and this has been the consistent administrative interpretation of the Comptroller General. 18 Comp.Gen. 191. It is significant that the journeymen printers acquiesced in this interpretation for eight years after 1938.
We would reverse.

## 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. Kember (648 F.2d 1354)

* related portals: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* 648 F.2d 1354
* In Re UNITED STATES of America
* v.
* Jane KEMBER and Morris Budlong, Mary Sue Hubbard, Henning Heldt, Richard Weigand, and Gregory Willardson, Appellants.
* No. 80-2329 to 80-2332
* United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
* Argued Nov. 19, 1980
* Decided Nov. 24, 1980
Witnesses, subpoenaed by prosecution to testify in criminal trial currently in progress and granted use immunity for that purpose, refused to testify and were held by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to be in civil contempt, and they appealed. The Court of Appeals, Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., J., held that: (1) district court had jurisdiction to try defendants for purely local offenses currently before the court and thus had power to compel their testimony and cite them for contempt; (2) compulsion of testimony through use immunity and contempt did not violate defendants' Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and their Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel; (3) defendants were not protected from being compelled to give testimony in case by the Fourth Amendment; (4) alleged unlawful electronic surveillance of defendant's counsel did not bar compulsion of defendants' testimony; and (5) defendant failed to establish that Government's attempted action to compel them to testify at trial with defendants was based on bad faith, vindictiveness, and unconstitutional purposes.

## Affirmed.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Misc. Nos. 80-0272 through 80-0275). Leonard B. Boudin, New York City, with whom Michael Lee Hertzberg, Roger E. Zuckerman, Roger C. Spaeder, Washington, D. C., Philip J. Hirschkop, and Leonard S. Rubenstein, Alexandria, Va., were on the brief, for appellants. Judith Hetherton, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Charles F. C. [p1356] Ruff, U. S. Atty., John A. Terry, Raymond Banoun, and Katherine Winfree, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

## Before McGOWAN, EDWARDS and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.

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

## Main index page

* Operation Snow White

## See also

* Category:Scientology
# United States v. Kelly (82 U.S. 34)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
82 U.S. 34
United States v. Kelly
We do not think that, under the circumstances of the present case, the bounty was forfeited. The able lawyer who fills at present the post of Judge Advocate General, in a case similar to the present, held that 'the honorable discharge of the deserter was a formal final judgment passed by the government upon the entire military record of the soldier, and an authoritative declaration by it that he had left the service in a status of honor; that as such, it dispensed altogether with the supposed necessity that the soldier must obtain bounty by removal, by order, of the charge of desertion from the rolls, and amounted of itself to the removal of any charge or impediment in the way of his receiving bounty.' With this opinion we entirely concur.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

## 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. Kelly (24 U.S. 417)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
24 U.S. 417
United States v. Kelly
THE defendants, Kelly and others, were indicted in the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, for that the defendants, on the 24th of December, 1824, being seamen on board a merchant vessel of the United States, called the Lancaster, on the high seas, feloniously endeavoured to make a revolt in the said vessel, contrary to the act of Congress of the 30th of April, 1790, c. 36. [ix.] s. 12. The defendants were found guilty, and moved the Court in arrest of judgment, upon the ground, 'that the act of Congress does not define the offence of endeavouring to make a revolt, and that it was not competent to the Court to give a judicial definition of a crime heretofore unknown.' The opinions of the Judges of the Court below being divided upon this motion, the case was certified to this Court for determination. March 9th.
The cause was submitted without argument by the Attorney General for the United States, no counsel appearing for the prisoners. March 10th.
Mr. Justice WASHINGTON 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. Kelly (24 U.S. 417)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
This case comes before the Court upon a certificate of a division of opinion of the Judges of the Circuit Court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, upon the following point assigned by the defendants as a reason in arrest of judgment, viz. 'that the act of Congress does not define the offence of endeavouring to make a revolt, and it is not competent to the Court to give a judicial definition of an offence heretofore unknown.'
This Court is of opinion, that although the act of Congress does not define this offence, it is, nevertheless, competent to the Court to give a judicial definition of it. We think, that the offence consists in the endeavour of the crew of a vessel, or any one or more of them, to overthrow the legitimate authority of her commander, with intent to remove him from his command, or against his will to take possession of the vessel by assuming the government and navigation of her, or by transferring their obedience from the lawful commander to some other person.
Certificate accordingly.

## 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. Kelly (342 U.S. 193)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Reed
United States Supreme Court
342 U.S. 193
United States v. Kelly (342 U.S. 193)
Argued: Nov. 30, 1951. --- Decided: Jan 2, 1952
Mr. Saul R. Gamer, Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Mr. Henry J. Fox, Detroit, Mich., for respondent.
Mr. Justice MINTON 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 6/3rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 3

Chap. III.—An Act for the relief of Thomas Jenkins and Sons.
Certain duties remitted.Be it enacted, &c., That it shall and may be lawful for the collector for the district of New York, to remit to Thomas Jenkins and Sons, owners of the ship American Hero, the duties and imposts of tonnage, ​which may be incurred in consequence of the incompetent or invalid register of the said ship: Provided, They shall obtain, within one hundred and twenty days, a new register for the said ship, in the manner prescribed by law.
Approved, February 19, 1794.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/3rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 44

Chap. XLIV.—An Act for the relief of John Robbe.
Sec. of War to place John Robbe on pension list.Be it enacted, &c., That the Secretary of the department of war be, and he hereby is required to place on the invalid list, John Robbe, wounded in the late war while in the service of the United States, at the rate of two dollars and a half per month, to commence on the twenty-first day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-six.
To be paid agreeably to law.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the arrears of the said pension be paid as the laws direct in similar cases.
Approved, June 4, 1794.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 6/3rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 29

Chap. XXIX.—An Act providing for the payment of certain expenses incurred by Fulwar Skipwith, on public account.
Payment of certain expenses incurred by F. Skipwith. To be ascertained by treasury departm’t.Be it enacted, &c., That the President of the United States be authorized and requested to direct the payment, out of the fund provided for the intercourse with foreign nations, of all just and reasonable expenses incurred by Fulwar Skipwith, in relieving the wants, and facilitating the return of the seamen belonging to the vessels of the said states, lately taken or condemned in the British West-India islands, under orders from the king of Great Britain; the said expenses having first been ascertained by the accounting officers of the treasury department, who are hereby authorized to liquidate the same.
Approved, May 19, 1794.