Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 179 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 98, 36 Stat. 1120; Oct. 7, 1914, ch. 318, 38 Stat. 728; Mar. 17, 1920, ch. 101, § 1, 41 Stat. 531; June 7, 1924, ch. 359, § 1, 43 Stat. 661; Dec. 24, 1924, ch. 18, 43 Stat. 721; June 12, 1926, ch. 566, 44 Stat. 734; June 22, 1926, ch. 645, 44 Stat. 758; June 22, 1926, ch. 646, 44 Stat. 758; Mar. 2, 1927, ch. 276, 44 Stat. 1339; Apr. 25, 1928, ch. 432, 45 Stat. 457; May 10, 1928, ch. 516, 45 Stat. 495; Feb. 20, 1933, ch. 107, 47 Stat. 859; Feb. 28, 1933, ch. 133, 47 Stat. 1350; June 28, 1935, ch. 330, §§ 1, 2, 49 Stat. 429; June 24, 1936, ch. 744, 49 Stat. 1898; June 24, 1936, ch. 759, 49 Stat. 1910; Aug. 17, 1937, ch. 688, 50 Stat. 671).

References to civil and criminal terms at Raleigh were omitted as more properly the subject of rule of court.

The following language at the end of section 179 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was omitted: “There shall be a judge appointed for the said middle district in the manner now provided by law who shall receive the salary provided by law for the judges of the eastern and western districts, and a district attorney, marshal, clerk, and other officers in the manner and at the salary now provided by law. All causes in the said middle district in equity, bankruptcy, or admiralty, in which orders and decrees have already been made and which are now in process of trial, shall continue and remain subject to the jurisdiction of the judge of that district by whom the same shall have been made and before whom the same shall have been partially tried and determined.”

The first sentence is superfluous in view of other sections of this title governing the appointment and compensation of the judges, clerks and marshals of the district courts and of district attorneys. The last sentence is obsolete, having been enacted in 1927, and being limited to cases affected by the creation of the middle district.

Provisions for maintenance of offices by the clerks at certain cities were omitted. (See Reviser’s Note under sections 452 and 751 of this title.)

Provisions for furnishing rooms and accommodations at Durham, Rockingham, and Winston-Salem were omitted as obsolete upon advice of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts that Federal accommodations are now available in such places.

The provisions respecting court accommodations at Bryson City and Shelby were omitted as covered by section 142 of this title.

Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.

2021—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 117–26, § 1(a)(1), substituted “Wilson, those portions of Hoke, Moore, Scotland, and Richmond counties encompassing the Fort Bragg Military Reservation and Camp Mackall, and” for “and Wilson and”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 117–26, § 1(a)(2), added subsec. (b) and struck out former subsec. (b) which read as follows: “The Middle District comprises the counties of Alamance, Cabarrus, Caswell, Chatham, Davidson, Davie, Durham (excluding that portion of Durham County encompassing the Federal Correctional Institution, Butner, North Carolina), Forsythe, Guilford, Hoke, Lee, Montgomery, Moore, Orange, Person, Randolph, Richmond, Rockingham, Rowan, Scotland, Stanly, Stokes, Surry, and Yadkin.” Amendment directing striking out subsec. (b) was executed only to the first paragraph and not the concluding sentence, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

1992—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–272, which directed the amendment of subsec. (a) by striking out “Clinton,” and “Washington,” and inserting “Greenville,” after “Fayetteville,”, was executed to the second sentence to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

1980—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96–462, § 5(a), added that portion of Durham County encompassing the Federal Correctional Institution, Butner, North Carolina to the Eastern District.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 96–462, § 5(b), struck out references to Alleghany, Ashe, Watauga, and Wilkes counties in the list of counties comprising the Middle District; inserted “(excluding that portion of Durham County encompassing the Federal Correctional Institution, Butner, North Carolina)” in first sentence as the probable intent of Congress; and struck out Rockingham, Salisbury, and Wilkesboro as places for holding court.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 96–462, § 5(c), added Alleghany, Ashe, Watauga, and Wilkes counties to the Western District.

1965—Pub. L. 89–319 provided for holding court at Clinton.

Pub. L. 117–26, § 1(b), July 6, 2021, 135 Stat. 299, provided that “The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall not apply to any action commenced or pending in any judicial district of North Carolina before the date of enactment of this Act [July 6, 2021].”

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–462 effective Oct. 1, 1981, but not to affect the composition or preclude the service of any grand or petit juror summoned, empaneled, or actually serving in any judicial district on Oct. 1, 1981, see section 7 of Pub. L. 96–462, set out as a note under section 84 of this title.

Pub. L. 96–462, § 5(d), Oct. 15, 1980, 94 Stat. 2054, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall not apply to any action commenced before the effective date of such amendments [Oct. 1, 1981] and pending in any judicial district of North Carolina on such date.”