OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Note: This is the original legislation as it was initially enacted. Any subsequent amendments hosted on Wikisource may be listed using What Links Here.
An Act Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
    That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, namely:
Table of Contents
    This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010´´.
Approved October 28, 2009.

## Notes

* ↑ Note: A Table of Contents was not provided in the original text; an abbreviated one has been added here strictly for navigational and editorial purposes. In the orginal text, Title I came immediately after the Enacting Clause.

## Legislative History

* H.R. 3183, (S. 1436)
   * HOUSE REPORTS:
   ** No. 111-203 (Comm. on Appropriations)
   ** No. 111-278 (Comm. of Conference)
   * SENATE REPORTS:
   ** No. 111-45 accompanying S. 1436 (Comm. on Appropriations)
   * CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
   ** July 17, considered and passed House.
   ** July 29, considered and passed Senate, amended.
   ** Sept. 30, Conference report filed.
   ** Oct. 1, House agreed to conference report.
   ** Oct. 15, Senate agreed to conference report.
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
# Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007/Title XVI
## TITLE XVI — EFFECTIVE DATE
### Sec. 1601. Effective Date.

    This Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on the date that is 1 day after the date of enactment of this Act.
# Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Lucius Tarquinius Priscus

See also Lucius Tarquinius Priscus on Wikipedia; Lucius Tarquinius Priscus in the 11th Edition; and the disclaimer.
TARQUINIUS PRISCUS, Lucius, fifth legendary king of Rome, is represented as the son of a Greek refugee who removed from Tarquinii in Etruria to Rome, by the advice of his wife, the prophetess Tanaquil. Appointed guardian to the sons of Ancus Marcius, he succeeded in supplanting them on the throne on their father’s death. It was he who first established the Circus Maximus, built the great cloacæ, and founded the triple temple on the Capitol,—the expense of these vast works being defrayed by plunder seized from the Latins and Sabines. Many of the ensigns both of war and of civil office are assigned to his reign, and he was the first to celebrate a Roman triumph, after the Etruscan fashion, in a robe of purple and gold, and borne on a chariot drawn by four horses. After a reign of thirty-eight years he was assassinated by the contrivance of the sons of Ancus Marcius, but Tanaquil had influence enough to secure the succession to Servius Tullius, his son-in-law. See vol. xx. p. 733.
# Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Louisa

See also Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz on Wikipedia; the 11th edition; and the disclaimer.
LOUISA (1776-1810), queen of Prussia, was born March 10, 1776, in Hanover, where her father, Duke Charles of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, was commandant. After the death of her mother, who was by birth a princess of Hesse-Darmstadt, she was entrusted to the care of a Fräulein von Wolzogen, and afterwards to that of her grandmother, the landgravine of Hesse-Darmstadt. During the period of the revolutionary wars, she lived for some time with her sister Charlotte, the wife of Duke Frederick of Saxe-Hildburghausen. In 1793 she met at Frankfort the crown prince of Prussia, afterwards King Frederick William III., who was so fascinated by her beauty, and by the nobleness of her character, that he asked her to become his wife. On April 24 of the same year they were betrothed, and on the 24th of December they were married. As queen of Prussia she commanded universal respect and affection, and nothing in Prussian history is more pathetic than the patience and dignity with which she bore the sufferings inflicted on her and her family during the war between Prussia and France. After the battle of Jena she went with her husband to Königsberg, and when the battles of Eylau and Friedland had placed Prussia absolutely at the mercy of France, she made a personal appeal to Napoleon at his headquarters in Tilsit, but without success. Early in 1808 she accompanied the king from Memel to Königsberg, whence, towards the end of the year, she visited St Petersburg, returning to Berlin on the 23d of December 1809. During the war Napoleon, with incredible brutality, attempted to destroy the queen's reputation, but the only effect of his charges in Prussia was to make her more deeply beloved. On the 19th of July 1810 she died in her husband's arms, while visiting her father in Strelitz. No other queen in modern times has been more sincerely mourned. She was buried in the garden of the palace at Charlottenburg, where a beautiful mausoleum, containing a fine recumbent statue by Rauch, was built over her grave. In 1840 her husband was buried by her side. The Louisa Foundation (Luisenstift) for the education of girls was established in her honour, and in 1814 Frederick William III. instituted the Order of Louisa (Luisenorden). On the 10th of March 1876 the Prussian people celebrated the hundredth anniversary of her birth, and it was then decided to erect a statue of Queen Louisa in the Thiergarten at Berlin.
See Adami, Luise, Königin von Preussen, 7th ed., 1875; Engel, Königin Luise, 1876; Kluckhohn, Luise, Königin von Preussen, 1876; Mommsen and Treitschke, Königin Luise, 1876; in English, Hudson, Life and Times of Louisa, Queen of Prussia, 1874.
# Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Lucius Tarquinius Superbus

See also Lucius Tarquinius Superbus on Wikipedia; Lucius Tarquinius Superbus in the 11th Edition; and the disclaimer.
TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS, Lucius, son of the preceding, and son-in-law of Servius Tullius, immediately succeeded the latter without any of the forms of election, and proceeded at once to repeal the recent reforms in the constitution, seeking to establish a pure despotism in their place. Wars were waged with the Latins and Etruscans, but the lower classes were deprived of their arms, and employed in erecting monuments of regal magnificence, while the sovereign recruited his armies from his own retainers and from the forces of foreign allies. The completion of the fortress temple on the Capitoline confirmed his authority over the city, and a fortunate marriage of his son to the daughter of Octavius Manilius of Tusculum secured him powerful assistance in the field. His reign was characterized by bloodshed and violence; the outrage of his son Sextus upon Lucretia precipitated a revolt, which led to the expulsion of the entire family, after Tarquin had reigned twenty-five years. All efforts to force his way back to the throne were vain, and he died a lonely and childless old man at Cumæ. See vol. xx. p. 734.
# Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Lucius Aurelius Commodus

See also Commodus on Wikipedia; Commodus on Wikipedia; Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus in the 11th Edition; and the disclaimer.
Rome from 180 to 192, was born at Lanuvium in 161, and was the son of the philosopher-emperor M. Aurelius, and of the younger Faustina. His teachers were carefully selected; but all the pains bestowed on his education did not prevent him from choosing the society and the pursuits of profligate favourites and common gladiators. Blind to his faults, however, his father gave him the title of emperor when not more than fifteen years of age; and at sixteen he shared the imperial power in every department except the chief pontificate. On the death of Aurelius, whom he had accompanied in the war against the Germans, Commodus hastily concluded peace, and hurried back to the pleasures of the capital (180). From the first he gave ​himself up to unbounded licence; but for some years his vices were all private. In 183, however, he was attacked, at the instigation of his sister Lucilla, by an assassin, who declared that he struck in the name of the senate; and the nobility paid the penalty by the murder of any of that rank who afterwards aroused the slightest suspicion in the mind of the emperor. At the same time the vulgar vanity of Commodus manifested itself in a manner that exposed him to the scorn of the meanest citizen. No longer content with showing his strength and dexterity to a little group of favourites in the palace, he presented himself as a spectacle in the arena, and, carefully protected from serious danger, displayed his skill by shooting hundreds of wild animals, and by meeting in fight hundreds of gladiators. He called himself the Roman Hercules, and commanded that he should be worshipped as such. Plots against his life naturally began to spring up. That of his favourite Perennis was discovered in time. The next danger was from the people, who were infuriated by the dearth of corn. The mob repelled the prætorian guard, but the execution of the hated minister, Oleander, quieted the tumult. The attempt also of the daring highwayman Maternus to seize the empire was betrayed; but at last Eclectus the emperor's chamberlain, Lætus the prefect of the prætorians, and his mistress Marcia, finding their names on the list of those doomed to death, united to destroy him. He was poisoned, and then strangled by a wrestler named Narcissus, on the 31st December 192, in the thirty-second year of his age. It was said that he had intended to disgrace the office of consul by taking the auspices at the commencement of a new year of office, not in the consular robe but in the garb of a secutpr, and surrounded not by the senate but by a band of gladiators. His guards alone, accustomed to his lavish bounty, regretted his death; and Pertinax, being chosen by the conspirators, was allowed quietly to
# Enterprise and Adventure/A Timely Rescue

A TIMELY RESCUE.
One of the most singular escapes from drowning at sea perhaps ever recorded, is related in the letter of an officer of the eighty-third regiment, addressed to friends in Canada Borne years ago. While the division to which the writer belonged was on its way to Orient, being at that time a short distance eastward of the Cape of Good Hope, one of the men was ordered, for some trifling offence, to be severely flogged. Irritated to madness by the disgrace of the punishment, and by the cruelty with which it was administered, the poor fellow was no sooner released from the cords which had bound him than he ran to the bulwarks of the vessel, and, before the ship's crew and his soldier comrades, sprang overboard. The vessel was at the time making rapid way, with a high sea running, so that, as the man swept astern, all hope of saving him appeared to be at an end. Assistance, however, came from a quarter which the spectators could hardly have anticipated. While the crew were vainly endeavouring to lower the boat, which, ​as generally happens, was found to be no easy matter, a huge bird was seen in the distance to swoop down upon the struggling man. As the form of the man grew more indistinct in the distance, it seemed fluttering over him, as if puzzled by the unusual object. By the time the vessel had put about, and the boat, which had at length been lowered, was approaching, the bird was seen to be a huge albatross, which had descended upon the struggling soldier, doubtless to prey upon the body; but the man, in the agonies of his struggle, had instinctively seized the bird firmly, and retained his grasp in spite of the embarrassment of the creature, and its strenuous efforts to release itself. In this position his comrades found him, and finally restored him safely to the vessel. "Incredible as this story seems," says the original narrator, "the name and position of the writer of the letter, who was an eye-witness of the scene, sufficiently attests its truth."
# Ex parte Carrington/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
396 U.S. 280
Ex parte Carrington
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

## 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
# Ex parte Century Indemnity Company No - Original Submitted on Rule and Return

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
305 U.S. 354
Ex parte Century Indemnity Company No - Original Submitted on Rule and Return
Mr. Jewel Alexander, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
Mr. Joe G. Sweet, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee Nelson.
PER CURIAM.

## 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
# Ex parte Cogdell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
342 U.S. 163
Ex parte Cogdell
Argued: Sept. 10, 1951. --- Decided: Dec 11, 1951
PER CURIAM.

## 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
# Ex parte Carrington

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
396 U.S. 280
Ex parte Carrington
Leon B. Polsky, for Carrington.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., and Judith T. Younger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of New York.
PER CURIAM.

## 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
# Ex parte Century Indemnity Company No - Original Submitted on Rule and Return/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
305 U.S. 354
Ex parte Century Indemnity Company No - Original Submitted on Rule and Return
On an appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in an action at law, in which a jury was waived, the Circuit Court of Appeals refused to consider certain assignments of error upon the ground that they related to findings requested by the defendant after the trial had been concluded. The judgment was affirmed (Century Indemnity Co. v. Nelson, 9 Cir., 90 F.2d 644) and certiorari was granted, 302 U.S. 674, 58 S.Ct. 55, 82 L.Ed. 520. We were unable to accept the conclusion of the Circuit Court of Appeals that when the trial court ordered 'that judgment be entered for plaintiff, with interest and costs, upon findings of fact and conclusions of law to be presented', it was thereafter 'too late adequately to present special findings of fact'. It was not necessary to treat the first order for judgment as ending 'the progress of the trial'. 28 U.S.C. § 875, 28 U.S.C.A. § 875. The qualifying words in the order were appropriate to suggest a 'reservation of opportunity for further action'. Accordingly, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals was reversed and the cause was remanded to that court for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of this Court. Century Indemnity Company v. Nelson, 303 U.S. 213, 58 S.Ct. 531, 82 L.Ed. 755.
On the later hearing, the Circuit Court of Appeals found another ground for its action,-a ground not dealt with in its former ruling and not presented by the petition for certiorari. That was that defendant's proposed findings were 'not incorporated in the bill of exceptions, either directly or by reference'. The Circuit Court of Appeals refused to consider the assignments of error addressed to the rejection of these findings and again affirmed the judgment. 9 Cir., 96 F.2d 679.
On application of the defendant, this Court issued a rule directing the judges of the Circuit Court of Appeals to show cause why the judgment should not be vacated and the court be required to consider the assignments of error. The judges have made return to the rule.
While it appears from the bill of exceptions that the defendant 'served and lodged its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law', and the transcript contains a paper described as defendant's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, that paper is not included in the bill of exceptions and hence is not properly authenticated. 28 U.S.C. § 875, 28 U.S.C.A. § 875; Mercantile Mut. Insurance Company v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 237, 249, 21 L.Ed. 827; McLeod v. United States, 10 Cir., 67 F.2d 740.
In view of that defect, we cannot direct the Circuit Court of Appeals to consider the assignments of error and the rule to show cause must be discharged. It is ordered.
Rule to show cause discharged.

## 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
# Ex parte City Bank of New Orleans

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Catron
United States Supreme Court
44 U.S. 292
Ex parte City Bank of New Orleans

## 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
# Ex parte Cogdell/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
342 U.S. 163
Ex parte Cogdell
Argued: Sept. 10, 1951. --- Decided: Dec 11, 1951
Petitioners brought suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia to restrain on constitutional grounds the enforcement of certain legislation passed by Congress for the administration of the District of Columbia school system. Petitioners' request that a court of three judges be convened under Section 2282 of the Judicial Code was denied. Subsequently, the motion of defendant school officials to dismiss the suit for failure to state a cause of action was granted.
Petitioners filed a motion in this Court for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus directing that a court of three judges be convened to hear and determine their constitutional claims. As substantial jurisdictional questions were raised, we granted the motion and issued a rule to show cause why mandamus should not be granted. Cogdell v. McGuire, 342 U.S. 805, 72 S.Ct. 66. In addition to this mandamus action, appeals were taken by petitioners to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and are now pending in that court.
One of the jurisdictional questions raised by this case is whether a court of three judges is required by Section 2282 in a suit to enjoin enforcement of congressional enactments affecting only the District of Columbia. The Section uses the words 'any Act of Congress.' As against petitioners' contention that all legislation passed by Congress is embraced within that language, it is urged that a proper interpretation of Section 2282 confines the phrase 'Act of Congress' to laws having general application throughout the United States. Resolution of this issue determines whether this Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in this class of case, or whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction. As a result, the same question is necessarily before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in its consideration of petitioners' appeals now pending in that court. Because the question is one of general importance to judicial administration within the District of Columbia, we continue this case on our docket to await the views of the Court of Appeals.
Cause continued.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS dissents.

## Notes

* ↑ 28 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) § 2282, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2282: 'An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution of the United States shall not be granted by any district court or judge thereof unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under section 2284 of this title.'
* ↑ 28 U.S.C.(Supp. IV) § 1253, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1253.
* ↑ Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 1930, 282 U.S. 10, 51 S.Ct. 8, 75 L.Ed. 135.
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
# Executive Order 361

more info.
Signed by President Theodore Roosevelt Monday, October 16, 1905
1905 CSR 92
Miss Julia P. Madeira, of West Virginia, having been employed in a classified position in the Bureau of the Census, at $900 per annum, and her name having been removed from the rolls without prejudice because of prolonged illness, may be reinstated in that Bureau and immediately transferred to the office of the assayer of the mint at Denver, Colo., notwithstanding the limitations contained in clause (a) of Rule IX and clause (a), section 8, of Rule X of the civil service rules.
White House,
       October 16, 1905.
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
# Executive Order 36

more info.
Part of the same document as Executive Order 37; each section on the page got a separate Executive Order number.
Signed by President Grover Cleveland Friday, November 2, 1894
Departmental Rule II.
Departmental Rule II, clause 3 (f), is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the following words: "and of Pomology;" so that as amended the paragraph will read:
    (f) Chiefs of divisions, except in the Department of Agriculture the chiefs of the following divisions: Entomology, economic ornithology and mammalogy, and pomology.
Approved November 2, 1894.
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
# Executive Order 360

more info.
Signed by President Theodore Roosevelt Monday, October 16, 1905
1905 CSR 92
Miss Dollie A. Slayton, of Montana, who is now serving in a temporary position in the Bureau of the Census as the result of certification, may be retained and appointed to a clerical position on the permanent roll of that Bureau.
White House,
       October 16, 1905.
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