dreamproit/uscode huggingface dataset:
15 U.S.C. § 7a–2 (COMMERCE AND TRADE)
§ 7a–2. Rights, authorities, and liabilities not affected
Nothing in sections 7a to 7a–3 of this title shall be construed to—
(1) affect the rights of the Antitrust Division to seek a stay or protective order in a civil action based on conduct covered by an antitrust leniency agreement to prevent the cooperation described in section 7a–1(b) of this title from impairing or impeding the investigation or prosecution by the Antitrust Division of conduct covered by the agreement;
(2) create any right to challenge any decision by the Antitrust Division with respect to an antitrust leniency agreement; or
(3) affect, in any way, the joint and several liability of any party to a civil action described in section 7a–1(a) of this title, other than that of the antitrust leniency applicant and cooperating individuals as provided in section 7a–1(a) of this title.”
(Pub. L. 108–237, title II, § 214, June 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 667; Pub. L. 111–190, § 4, June 9, 2010, 124 Stat. 1276.)
heading: References in Text
text: Sections 7a to 7a–3 of this title, referred to in text, was in the original “this subtitle”, meaning subtitle A (§§ 211–216) of title II of Pub. L. 108–237, June 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 666, which enacted this section and sections 7a, 7a–1, and 7a–3 of this title, amended sections 1, 2, and 3 of this title, and enacted provisions formerly set out in a note under section 1 of this title. For complete classification of subtitle A to the Code, see Tables.
heading: Codification
text: Section was formerly set out in a note under section 1 of this title, prior to transfer to this section upon repeal of sunset provision.
heading: Amendments
text: 2010—Par. (1). Pub. L. 111–190, § 4(1), made technical amendment to reference in original act which appears in text as reference to section 7a–1(b) of this title.
Par. (3). Pub. L. 111–190, § 4(2), made technical amendment to references in original act which appear in two places in text as references to section 7a–1(a) of this title.
15 U.S.C. § 9201 (COMMERCE AND TRADE)
§ 9201. Findings
Congress finds the following:
(1) Gaps currently exist on the underlying research needed to develop tools that detect videos, audio files, or photos that have manipulated or synthesized content, including those generated by generative adversarial networks. Research on digital forensics is also needed to identify, preserve, recover, and analyze the provenance of digital artifacts.
(2) The National Science Foundation’s focus to support research in artificial intelligence through computer and information science and engineering, cognitive science and psychology, economics and game theory, control theory, linguistics, mathematics, and philosophy, is building a better understanding of how new technologies are shaping the society and economy of the United States.
(3) The National Science Foundation has identified the “10 Big Ideas for NSF Future Investment” including “Harnessing the Data Revolution” and the “Future of Work at the Human-Technology Frontier”, with artificial intelligence is a critical component.
(4) The outputs generated by generative adversarial networks should be included under the umbrella of research described in paragraph (3) given the grave national security and societal impact potential of such networks.
(5) Generative adversarial networks are not likely to be utilized as the sole technique of artificial intelligence or machine learning capable of creating credible deepfakes. Other techniques may be developed in the future to produce similar outputs.
(Pub. L. 116–258, § 2, Dec. 23, 2020, 134 Stat. 1150.)
heading: Short Title
text: Pub. L. 116–258, § 1, Dec. 23, 2020, 134 Stat. 1150, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the ‘Identifying Outputs of Generative Adversarial Networks Act’ or the ‘IOGAN Act’.”
15 U.S.C. § 9202 (COMMERCE AND TRADE)
§ 9202. NSF support of research on manipulated or synthesized content and information security
The Director of the National Science Foundation, in consultation with other relevant Federal agencies, shall support merit-reviewed and competitively awarded research on manipulated or synthesized content and information authenticity, which may include—
(1) fundamental research on digital forensic tools or other technologies for verifying the authenticity of information and detection of manipulated or synthesized content, including content generated by generative adversarial networks;
(2) fundamental research on technical tools for identifying manipulated or synthesized content, such as watermarking systems for generated media;
(3) social and behavioral research related to manipulated or synthesized content, including human engagement with the content;
(4) research on public understanding and awareness of manipulated and synthesized content, including research on best practices for educating the public to discern authenticity of digital content; and
(5) research awards coordinated with other federal agencies and programs, including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency, with coordination enabled by the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program.
(Pub. L. 116–258, § 3, Dec. 23, 2020, 134 Stat. 1151.)
15 U.S.C. § 9203 (COMMERCE AND TRADE)
§ 9203. NIST support for research and standards on generative adversarial networks
(a) In general
The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall support research for the development of measurements and standards necessary to accelerate the development of the technological tools to examine the function and outputs of generative adversarial networks or other technologies that synthesize or manipulate content.
(b) Outreach
The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall conduct outreach—
(1) to receive input from private, public, and academic stakeholders on fundamental measurements and standards research necessary to examine the function and outputs of generative adversarial networks; and
(2) to consider the feasibility of an ongoing public and private sector engagement to develop voluntary standards for the function and outputs of generative adversarial networks or other technologies that synthesize or manipulate content.
(Pub. L. 116–258, § 4, Dec. 23, 2020, 134 Stat. 1151.)
15 U.S.C. § 9204 (COMMERCE AND TRADE)
§ 9204. Generative adversarial network defined
In this chapter, the term “generative adversarial network” means, with respect to artificial intelligence, the machine learning process of attempting to cause a generator artificial neural network (referred to in this section as the “generator” 1 and a discriminator artificial neural network (referred to in this section as a “discriminator”) to compete against each other to become more accurate in their function and outputs, through which the generator and discriminator create a feedback loop, causing the generator to produce increasingly higher-quality artificial outputs and the discriminator to increasingly improve in detecting such artificial outputs.
(Pub. L. 116–258, § 6, Dec. 23, 2020, 134 Stat. 1152.)
heading: References in Text
text: This section, referred to in text, was in the original “this paragraph”, and was translated as reading “this section”, meaning section 6 of Pub. L. 116–258, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
28 U.S.C. § 6 (JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE)
§ 6. Records of former court of appeals
The records and proceedings of the court of appeals, appointed previous to the adoption of the Constitution, shall be kept until deposited with the National Archives of the United States in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court, who shall furnish copies thereof to any person requiring and paying for them, in the manner provided by law for giving copies of the records and proceedings of the Supreme Court. Such copies shall have the same faith and credit as proceedings of the Supreme Court.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 870; Oct. 25, 1951, ch. 562, § 4(7), 65 Stat. 640.)
heading: Historical and Revision Notes
text: Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 329 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 222, 36 Stat. 1153).
In a letter dated August 8, 1944, the clerk of the Supreme Court advised that many of the early records mentioned in this section were destroyed by fire. Others are on file in the Clerk’s office.
Minor changes in phraseology were made.
heading: Editorial Notes
heading: Amendments
text: 1951—Act Oct. 25, 1951, inserted “until deposited with the National Archives of the United States” in first sentence.
28 U.S.C. § 43 (JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE)
§ 43. Creation and composition of courts
(a) There shall be in each circuit a court of appeals, which shall be a court of record, known as the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit.
(b) Each court of appeals shall consist of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service. The circuit justice and justices or judges designated or assigned shall be competent to sit as judges of the court.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 870; Pub. L. 88–176, § 1(a), Nov. 13, 1963, 77 Stat. 331.)
heading: Historical and Revision Notes
text: Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 212 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 117, 36 Stat. 1131).
The provision in section 212 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., for a three-judge court of appeals was permissive and did not limit the power of the court to sit in banc. Thus, subsection (b) reflects present status of law, namely, that court is composed of not only circuit judges of the circuit in active service, of whom there may be more than three, but the circuit justice or justices and judges who may be assigned or designated to the court. (See Textile Mills Securities Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1942, 62 S.Ct. 272, 314 U.S. 326, 86 L.Ed. 249 and Reviser’s Notes under section 46 of this title.)
Words “with appellate jurisdiction, as hereinafter limited and established” were omitted as covered by section 1291 et seq. of this title, conferring appellate jurisdiction on the courts of appeals.
The term “court of appeals” was substituted in this section and throughout this title for the term “circuit court of appeals.”
Provision for a quorum of the court is now covered by section 46(d) of this title.
heading: Editorial Notes
heading: Amendments
text: 1963—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 88–176 inserted “regular” before “active service”.
heading: Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
heading: Change of Name of Court
text: Act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 2(b), 62 Stat. 985, provided in part that each circuit court of appeals should, after Sept. 1, 1948, be known as a United States Court of Appeals, but that the enactment of act June 25, 1948 should in no way entail any loss of rights, interruption of jurisdiction, or prejudice to matters pending in any such courts on Sept. 1, 1948.
28 U.S.C. § 82 (JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE)
§ 82. Arizona
Arizona constitutes one judicial district.
Court shall be held at Flagstaff, Globe, Phoenix, Prescott, Tucson, and Yuma.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 874; Pub. L. 116–40, § 1, Aug. 9, 2019, 133 Stat. 1063.)
heading: Historical and Revision Notes
text: Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 143 (June 20, 1910, ch. 310, § 31, 36 Stat. 576; Oct. 3, 1913, ch. 17, §§ 1, 2, 38 Stat. 203).
A provision for transfer of causes, civil or criminal, from one place for holding court to another was omitted. Such provision, as to civil cases, is covered by section 1404 of this title, and, as to criminal cases, is rendered unnecessary because of inherent power of the court and Rules 18–20 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, relating to venue.
A provision for making an interlocutory order at any place designated for holding court was omitted as unnecessary in view of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 77(b).
A provision requiring the clerk to keep his office at the State capital was omitted as covered by section 751 of this title.
Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.
heading: Editorial Notes
heading: Amendments
text: 2019—Pub. L. 116–40 substituted “Flagstaff, Globe, Phoenix, Prescott, Tucson, and Yuma” for “Globe, Phoenix, Prescott, and Tucson”.
28 U.S.C. § 85 (JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE)
§ 85. Colorado
Colorado constitutes one judicial district.
Court shall be held at Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver, Durango, Grand Junction, Montrose, Pueblo, and Sterling.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 875; Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 409, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3362; Pub. L. 108–455, § 5, Dec. 10, 2004, 118 Stat. 3629; Pub. L. 108–482, title III, § 301, Dec. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 3918.)
heading: Historical and Revision Notes
text: Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 146 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 73, 36 Stat. 1108; June 12, 1916, ch. 143, 39 Stat. 225; May 29, 1924, ch. 209, 43 Stat. 243).
A provision for furnishing rooms and accommodations at Sterling was omitted as obsolete upon advice from the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts that Federal accommodations are now available.
A provision authorizing adjournment at Denver when there is not business for terms at other places, is incorporated in section 138 of this title.
Provisions as to clerk’s and marshal’s deputies and maintenance of offices were deleted as covered by sections 541 [see 561], 542 [see 561], and 751 of this title.
Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.
heading: Editorial Notes
heading: Amendments
text: 2004—Pub. L. 108–455 and 108–482 amended section identically, inserting “Colorado Springs,” after “Boulder,”.
1984—Pub. L. 98–620 provided for holding court at Boulder.
heading: Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
heading: Effective Date of 1984 Amendment
text: Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 411, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3362, provided that:
“(a) The amendments made by this subtitle [subtitle B (§§ 404–411) of title IV of Pub. L. 98–620, amending this section and sections 90, 93, 112, 124, and 126 of this title and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 1, 90, 93, and 124 of this title] shall take effect on January 1, 1985.
“(b) The amendments made by this subtitle shall not affect the composition, or preclude the service, of any grand or petit jury summoned, impaneled, or actually serving on the effective date of this subtitle [Jan. 1, 1985].”
28 U.S.C. § 86 (JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE)
§ 86. Connecticut
Connecticut constitutes one judicial district.
Court shall be held at Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, New London, and Waterbury.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 875; Pub. L. 87–36, § 3(b), May 19, 1961, 75 Stat. 83; Pub. L. 89–558, Sept. 7, 1966, 80 Stat. 705.)
heading: Historical and Revision Notes
text: Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 147 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 74, 36 Stat. 1108; Feb. 27, 1921, ch. 74, 41 Stat. 1146; June 15, 1933, ch. 80, 48 Stat. 148; Dec. 28, 1945, ch. 599, 59 Stat. 663).
Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.
heading: Editorial Notes
heading: Amendments
text: 1966—Pub. L. 89–558 provided for holding court at New London.
1961—Pub. L. 87–36 provided for holding court at Bridgeport and Waterbury.
28 U.S.C. § 92 (JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE)
§ 92. Idaho
Idaho, exclusive of Yellowstone National Park, constitutes one judicial district.
Court shall be held at Boise, Coeur d’Alene, Moscow, and Pocatello.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 877; Pub. L. 91–272, § 5, June 2, 1970, 84 Stat. 297.)
heading: Historical and Revision Notes
text: Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 151 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 78, 36 Stat. 1109; May 11, 1939, ch. 121, 53 Stat. 738).
All of Yellowstone National Park is included in the judicial district of Wyoming by section 131 of this title. Those parts of the park lying in Idaho are accordingly excluded from the judicial district of Idaho.
A provision as to the places for maintenance of the clerk’s offices, and requiring that they be open at all times, was omitted as covered by sections 452–751 of this title.
Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.
heading: Editorial Notes
heading: Amendments
text: 1970—Pub. L. 91–272 struck out provisions which had divided the judicial district of Idaho into a Northern Division, a Central Division, a Southern Division, and an Eastern Division.
28 U.S.C. § 96 (JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE)
§ 96. Kansas
Kansas constitutes one judicial district.
Court shall be held at Kansas City, Lawrence, Leavenworth, Salina, Topeka, Hutchinson, Wichita, Dodge City, and Fort Scott.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 880; Aug. 27, 1949, ch. 516, 63 Stat. 666; Pub. L. 99–554, title I, § 141, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3096.)
heading: Historical and Revision Notes
text: Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 157 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 82, 36 Stat. 1112; Sept. 6, 1916, ch. 447, 39 Stat. 725; June 7, 1924, ch. 319, 43 Stat. 607; June 13, 1938, ch. 349, 52 Stat. 673).
Provisions as to the appointment and residence of deputy marshals and deputy clerks and maintenance of offices by them were omitted. See sections 541 [see 561], 542 [see 561], and 751 of this title.
A provision making inoperative the terms of the last paragraph of this section, whenever, upon the recommendation of the Attorney General, court accommodations should be provided in Federal buildings, was omitted as unnecessary. When such buildings become available the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts will, under section 604 of this title, provide court accommodations therein.
The provision respecting court accommodations at Hutchinson was omitted as covered by section 142 of this title.
Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.
heading: Editorial Notes
heading: Amendments
text: 1986—Pub. L. 99–554 provided for holding court at Lawrence.
1949—Act Aug. 27, 1949, abolished the three divisions which constituted the judicial district, and added Dodge City as an additional place for holding court.
heading: Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
heading: Effective Date of 1986 Amendment
text: Amendment by Pub. L. 99–554 effective 30 days after Oct. 27, 1986, see section 302(a) of Pub. L. 99–554, set out as a note under section 581 of this title.
28 U.S.C. § 99 (JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE)
§ 99. Maine
Maine constitutes one judicial district.
Court shall be held at Bangor and Portland.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 881; Pub. L. 95–573, § 2, Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2458.)
heading: Historical and Revision Notes
text: Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 160 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 85, 36 Stat. 1114; Dec. 22, 1911, ch. 7, 37 Stat. 51; Sept. 8, 1916, ch. 475, §§ 1, 3, 39 Stat. 850; Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 279, 42 Stat. 1506).
Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.
heading: Editorial Notes
heading: Amendments
text: 1978—Pub. L. 95–573 struck out provision for two separate divisions, (1) the Northern Division comprising the counties of Aroostook, Hancock, Penobscot, Piscataquis, Somerset, Waldo, and Washington and (2) the Southern Division comprising the counties of Androscoggin, Cumberland, Franklin, Kennebec, Knox, Lincoln, Oxford, Sagadahoc, and York.
heading: Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
heading: Effective Date of 1978 Amendment
text: Amendment by Pub. L. 95–573 effective 180 days after Nov. 2, 1978, see section 6 of Pub. L. 95–573, set out as a note under section 93 of this title.
28 U.S.C. § 100 (JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE)
§ 100. Maryland
Maryland constitutes one judicial district comprising two divisions.
(1) The Northern Division comprises the counties of Allegany, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Caroline, Carroll, Cecil, Dorchester, Frederick, Garrett, Harford, Howard, Kent, Queen Anne’s, Somerset, Talbot, Washington, Wicomico, and Worcester, and the City of Baltimore.
Court for the Northern Division shall be held at Baltimore, Cumberland, and Denton.
(2) The Southern Division comprises the counties of Calvert, Charles, Montgomery, Prince George’s, and St. Mary’s.
Court for the Southern Division shall be held at a suitable site in Montgomery or Prince George’s County not more than five miles from the boundary of Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 882; Pub. L. 91–546, § 4, Dec. 14, 1970, 84 Stat. 1412; Pub. L. 100–487, § 1, Oct. 14, 1988, 102 Stat. 2431.)
heading: Historical and Revision Notes
text: Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 166 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 86, 36 Stat. 1114; Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 422, 43 Stat. 1106).
Provisions relating to appointment of a deputy clerk and a deputy marshal and the maintenance of offices by such deputies were omitted as covered by sections 541 [see 561], 542 [see 561], and 751 of this title.
The provisions respecting court accommodations at Denton were omitted as covered by section 142 of this title.
Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.
heading: Editorial Notes
heading: Amendments
text: 1988—Pub. L. 100–702 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section provided that Maryland constituted one judicial district and that court be held at Baltimore, Cumberland, Denton, and at a suitable site in Prince Georges County not more than five miles from the boundary of Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties.
1970—Pub. L. 91–546 added a suitable site in Prince Georges County not more than five miles from the boundary of Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties to the list of enumerated places for holding court in Maryland.
heading: Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
heading: Effective Date of 1988 Amendment
text: Pub. L. 100–487, § 2, Oct. 14, 1988, 102 Stat. 2431, provided that:
“(a) In General.—
This Act and the amendments made by this Act [amending this section] shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 14, 1988].
“(b) Pending Cases Not Affected.—
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not affect any action commenced before the effective date of this Act and pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on such date.
“(c) Juries Not Affected.—
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not affect the composition, or preclude the service, of any grand or petit jury summoned, empaneled, or actually serving in the Judicial District of Maryland on the effective date of this Act.”