OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea/Part 8

Part VIII
Regime of Islands
Article 121 Regime of islands
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
# United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea/Part 16

Part XVI
General Provisions
Article 300 Good faith and abuse of rights
States Parties shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed under this Convention and shall exercise the rights, jurisdiction and freedoms recognized in this Convention in a manner which would not constitute an abuse of right.
Article 301 Peaceful uses of the seas
In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention, States Parties shall refrain from any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 302 Disclosure of information
Without prejudice to the right of a State Party to resort to the procedures for the settlement of disputes provided for in this Convention, nothing in this Convention shall be deemed to require a State Party, in the fulfilment of its obligations under this Convention, to supply information the disclosure of which is contrary to the essential interests of its security.
Article 303 Archaeological and historical objects found at sea
1. States have the duty to protect objects of an archaeological and historical nature found at sea and shall cooperate for this purpose.
2. In order to control traffic in such objects, the coastal State may, in applying article 33, presume that their removal from the seabed in the zone referred to in that article without its approval would result in an infringement within its territory or territorial sea of the laws and regulations referred to in that article.
3. Nothing in this article affects the rights of identifiable owners, the law of salvage or other rules of admiralty, or laws and practices with respect to cultural exchanges.
4. This article is without prejudice to other international agreements and rules of international law regarding the protection of objects of an archaeological and historical nature.
Article 304 Responsibility and liability for damage
The provisions of this Convention regarding responsibility and liability for damage are without prejudice to the application of existing rules and the development of further rules regarding responsibility and liability under international law.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 9

* Front Matter
* Lists and Tables
* Public Acts
** Public Acts of the Twenty-Ninth Congress
** Public Acts of the Thirtieth Congress
** Public Acts of the Thirty-First Congress
* Private Acts
** List of Private Acts
** Private Acts of the Twenty-Ninth Congress
** Private Acts of the Thirtieth Congress
** Private Acts of the Thirty-First Congress
* Treaties
* Index
* Appendix
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 8

* Front Matter
* Treaties with Foreign Nations
* Appendix
* Treaty Index
* General Index
# United States Steel Products Company v. Adams the Steel Trader

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
275 U.S. 388
United States Steel Products Company v. Adams the Steel Trader
Argued: Dec. 2, 1927. --- Decided: Jan 3, 1928
Mr. John M. Woolsey, of New York City, for petitioners.
Mr. Silas Blake Axtell, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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 7

* Front Matter
* Indian Treaties
* Appendix
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 9/Treaties/Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

TREATY OF PEACE, FRIENDSHIP, LIMITS, AND SETTLEMENT WITH THE REPUBLIC OF MEXICO.
ARTICLES REFERRED TO IN THE FIFTEENTH ARTICLE OF THE PRECEDING TREATY.
First and Fifth Articles of the unratified Convention between the United States and the Mexican Republic of the 20th November, 1843.
# United States v. Cardiff/Concurrence Jackson

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Jackson
United States Supreme Court
344 U.S. 174
United States v. Cardiff
Argued: Nov. 17, 1952. --- Decided: Dec 8, 1952
Mr. Justice JACKSON concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice BURTON dissents.

## 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. Capital Transit Company Washington Virginia & Maryland Coach Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
338 U.S. 286
United States v. Capital Transit Company Washington Virginia & Maryland Coach Company
Argued: Oct. 20-21, 1949. --- Decided: Nov 14, 1949
Motion for Issuance of Mandate Denied Nov. 21, 1949.
See 70 S.Ct. 186.
Mr. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., for appellants, the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. Manuel J. Davis, Washington, D.C., for appellant, Washington, Va. & Md. Coach Co. Inc.
Mr. S. Harrison Kahn, Washington, D.C., for appellant, Alexandria, Barcroft & Washington Transit Co.
Mr. Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Washington, D.C., for appellee, Capital Transit Co.
Mr. Lloyd B. Harrison, Washington, D.C., for appellee, Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia.
Mr. Henry E. Ketner, Richmond, Va., for State Corporation of the State of Va., as amicus curiae by special leave of Court.
[Argument of Counsel from page 287 intentionally omitted]
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
# United States v. Capps

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
348 U.S. 296
United States v. Capps
Argued: Nov. 15, 1954. --- Decided: Feb 7, 1955
Sol. Gen. Simon E. Sobeloff, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. W. R. Ashburn, Norfolk, Va., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BURTON 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. Carbone

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Frankfurter
United States Supreme Court
327 U.S. 633
United States v. Carbone
Argued: Feb. 26, 27, 1946. --- Decided: March 25, 1946
On
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.
Mr.Frederick Bernays Wiener, of Providence, R.I., for appellant.
Mr. Hammond E. Chaffetz, of Washington, D.C., for appellees Joseph L. Carbone and others.
Mr. Michael Carchia, of Boston, Mass., for appellee Vincent Di Nunno.
Mr. Justice MURPHY 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. Cardiff

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

## Concurring Opinion

    Jackson
United States Supreme Court
344 U.S. 174
United States v. Cardiff
Argued: Nov. 17, 1952. --- Decided: Dec 8, 1952
Mr. James L. Morrisson, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. John Lichty, Portland, Or., for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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 33/Fifty-Eighth Congress/Treaties and Conventions

TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
CONCLUDED BY THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
WITH
FOREIGN NATIONS.
* Brazil - Extradition Treaty (14 May, 1897 & 28 May, 1898)
* Haiti - Naturalization Treaty (22 March, 1902)
* Spain - Friendship Treaty (8 July, 1902)
* Greece (19 November, 1902 & 2 December, 1902)
* Cuba - Commercial Convention (11 December, 1902)
* Guatemala - Extradition Treaty (27 February, 1903)
* Haiti - Naturalization Treaty Extension (28 February, 1903)
* Liberia - Money Order Convention (25 April, 1903 & 9 June, 1903)
* Transvaal - Money Order Convention (28 April, 1903 & 12 June, 1903)
* Great Britain - Zanzibar (5 June, 1903)
* Costa Rica - Money Order Convention (6 June, 1903 & 26 June, 1903)
* Cuba - Postal Convention (16 June, 1903)
* Peru - Money Order Convention (8 August 1904 & 12 September, 1903)
* China - Commercial Treaty (8 October, 1903)
* Panama - Isthmian Canal Convention (18 November, 1903)
* Hong Kong - Parcels-Post Convention (21 November, 1903)
* Cuba - Future Relations (22 May, 1903)
* Ethiopia - Commercial Treaty (27 December, 1903)
* Netherlands - Extradition Treaty (18 January, 1904)
* Cuba - Future Relations Extension (20 January, 1904)
* France - Relations in Tunis (15 March, 1904)
* Cuba - Extradition Treaty (6 April, 1904)
* Cuba - Extradition Protocol (6 April, 1904)
* Canada - Postal Convention (28 June, 1904)
* Japan - Parcels-Post Convention (30 June, 1904)
* Norway - Parcels-Post Convention (27 August, 1904 & 14 September 1904)
* Belgium - Parcels-Post Convention (19 November, 1904)
* Japan - Parcels-Post Convention (30 June, 1904)
* Great Britain - Parcels-Post Convention (3 February 1905 & 17 February 1905)
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 34

* Front Matter
* Lists and Tables
* Public Acts and Resolutions of the Fifty-Ninth Congress
* Private Acts and Resolutions of the Fifty-Ninth Congress
* Concurrent Resolutions
* Treaties and Conventions
* Proclamations Made by the President of the United States
* Index
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 4

* Front Matter
* Lists and Tables
* Public Acts of the Eighteenth Congress
* Public Acts of the Nineteeth Congress
* Public Acts of the Twentieth Congress
* Public Acts of the Twenty-First Congress
* Public Acts of the Twenty-Second Congress
* Public Acts of the Twenty-Third Congress
* Appendices
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 33/Fifty-Eighth Congress/Public Resolution

PUBLIC RESOLUTION OF THE FIFTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS of the UNITED STATES,
[Pub. Res. No. 1.]
[No. 1.] Joint Resolution Making immediately available the appropriations for mileage of Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, and for other purposes.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 35

* Front Matter
* Lists and Tables
* Public Acts and Resolutions of the Sixtieth Congress
* Private Acts and Resolutions of the Sixtieth Congress
* Concurrent Resolutions
* Treaties and Conventions
* Proclamations Made by the President of the United States
* Index
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 33/Fifty-Eighth Congress/Public Laws

PUBLIC LAWS
OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PASSED BY
THE FIFTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS.
1903-1905.
# United States Statutes at Large/Volume 36

* Front Matter
* Lists and Tables
* Public Acts and Resolutions of the Sixty-First Congress
* Private Acts and Resolutions of the Sixty-First Congress
* Concurrent Resolutions
* Treaties and Conventions
* Proclamations Made by the President of the United States
* Index
# United Nations Personnel Act

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "United Nations Personnel Act."
* 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 Nations Personnel Act 1997 (c. 13), an UK Act of Parliament that implements the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel by extending global criminal jurisdiction for certain crimes against United Nations workers. Act also criminalizes threats to commit such crimes.
* United Nations Personnel Act 2011, a Singaporean Act of Parliament that provides for similar provisions.
# United Nations Resolution No. 69-131 (International Day of Yoga)

| United Nations | A/RES/69/131 |
| General Assembly | Distr.: General 9 January 2015 |
Sixty-ninth session Agenda item 124
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 11 December 2014
[without reference to a Main Committee (A/69/L.17 and Add.1)]
69/131. International Day of Yoga
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolutions 66/2 of 19 September 2011 on the Political Declaration of the High-level Meeting of the General Assembly on the Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases and 68/98 of 11 December 2013 on global health and foreign policy,
Reaffirming General Assembly resolutions 53/199 of 15 December 1998 and 61/185 of 20 December 2006 on the proclamation of international years, and Economic and Social Council resolution 1980/67 of 25 July 1980 on international years and anniversaries,
Noting the importance of individuals and populations making healthier choices and following lifestyle patterns that foster good health,
Underscoring the fact that global health is a long-term development objective that requires closer international cooperation through the exchange of best practices aimed at building better individual lifestyles devoid of excesses of all kinds,
Recognizing that yoga provides a holistic approach to health and well-being,
Recognizing also that wider dissemination of information about the benefits of practising yoga would be beneficial for the health of the world population,
* Decides to proclaim 21 June the International Day of Yoga;
* Invites all Member and observer States, the organizations of the United Nations system and other international and regional organizations, as well as civil society, including non-governmental organizations and individuals, to observe the International Day of Yoga, in an appropriate manner and in accordance with national priorities, in order to raise awareness of the benefits of practising yoga;
* Stresses that the cost of all activities that may arise from the implementation of the present resolution should be met from voluntary contributions;
* Requests the Secretary-General to bring the present resolution to the attention of all Member and observer States and the organizations of the United Nations system.
69th plenary meeting 11 December 2014
# United States v. Fatio's Heirs

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 492
United States v. Fatio's Heirs
APPEAL from the superior court of East Florida.
The case was submitted by Mr Call, for the United States; and by Mr White, for the appellees.
Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL 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. Fatio's Heirs/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 492
United States v. Fatio's Heirs
This was a petition presented in pursuance of the act of congress, of the 23d of May 1828, providing for the adjudication of private land claims in Florida. The petitioners state that their claim is founded upon a grant for ten thousand acres of land, made by the governor of the province, then under the dominion of the king of Great Britain, to their ancestor Philip P. Fatio, deceased; and that by the stipulations of the treaty between their Britannic and catholic majesties, dated the 3d of September 1783, provision was made in the fifth article, that the British proprietors should be allowed a specified period to sell their lands in the provinces of East and West Florida, which were by that treaty ceded to Spain.
It was further provided, that where the value of the possessions was such, that 'they should not be able to dispose of them within the said term, then his catholic majesty shall grant them a prolongation proportioned to that end.'
Provision was also made by Spain in favour of such of the British proprietors as remained in the province, and became Spanish subjects. The ancestor of the petitioners remained and took the oath of allegiance, and the lands were surveyed and confirmed to him by the Spanish authorities.
The title was presented to the commissioners, and a report made in favour of the grant; and by the third section of the act of congress, approved May the 26th 1830, it was provided, 'that all claims derived from the former British government, contained in the reports of the commissioners of East Florida, who did not avail themselves of the treaty between Spain and England, signed at Versailles on the 20th of January 1783, by leaving said province, but who remained in the same and became Spanish subjects, and whose titles were approved by the Spanish authorities, and have been recommended by the commissioners, or the register and receiver acting as such, be, and the same are hereby confirmed.'
The treaty referred to in the above recited act, was evidently intended to be that of the 3d of September 1783, and the article is the fifth of that treaty, and not the third, as alleged in the petition.
In addition to the above laws and treaties, the petitioners have proved a possession, which constitutes a title by prescription, by the laws of Spain.
It is therefore considered, adjudged and decreed, that the decree of the superior court of East Florida, be affirmed.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the superior court for the eastern district of Florida, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said superior court in this cause be, and the same is hereby affirmed in all respects.

## 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. Felix/Concurrence Stevens

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Stevens
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Blackmun joins, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
While I join Parts I and II of the Court's opinion, I do not join Part III because I do not think there is "considerable justification," ante, at 387–388, for the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the Double Jeopardy Clause, as interpreted in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), bars prosecution of Felix for the conspiracy charge contained in count 1 of the indictment. In Grady, we held that "the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted." 495 U.S., at 510. But as the dissenting opinion of the Court of Appeals explained, "the overt acts at issue here did not meaningfully 'establish' an essential element of the conspiracy" because there is no overt act requirement in the federal drug conspiracy statute and the overt acts did not establish an agreement between Felix and his co-conspirators. 926 F.2d 1522, 1536 (CA10 1991) (Anderson, J., dissenting). I would thus reverse for the reasons explained in Parts I and II of the Court's opinion, ante, at 381–387, and Part III–B of the dissenting opinion of the Court of Appeals, 926 F.2d, at 1536–1539.
# United States v. Felipe Sandoval

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
231 U.S. 28
United States v. Felipe Sandoval
Argued: February 27, 1913. --- Decided: October 20, 1913
Solicitor General Bullitt and Mr. Louis G. Bissell for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 29-32 intentionally omitted]
Mr. A. B. Renehan for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 32-36 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Van Devanter 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. Felt & Tarrant Mfg Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
283 U.S. 269
United States v. Felt & Tarrant Mfg Company
Argued: March 3, 1931. --- Decided: April 13, 1931
The Attorney General and Mr. Charles B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Messrs. Thomas G. Haight, of Jersey City, N. J., and Robert H. Montgomery, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice STONE 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. Hilton Hotels Corporation

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
397 U.S. 580
United States v. Hilton Hotels Corporation
Argued: Feb. 26, 1970. --- Decided: April 20, 1970
Johnnie McK. Walters, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Milton A. Levenfeld, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Mr. Justice MARSHALL 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