ejaasaari/simplewiki-2025-04-01 huggingface dataset:
Boynton v. Virginia, , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. On December 20, 1958, Bruce Boynton, a senior at Howard Law School, left Washington, D.C. on a bus to go home for Christmas to Montgomery, Alabama. At the bus terminal in Richmond, Virginia he entered the restaurant and sat in the "white only" section. For refusing to leave, he was arrested and convicted for violating a Virginia statute making it illegal for anyone "without authority of law" to remain after being forbidden to do so. He then appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Virginia. He maintained “that his conviction violated the Interstate Commerce Act and the Equal Protection, Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the Federal Constitution.” But the state Supreme Court upheld his conviction.He next petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction of the lower court. The Court held that Boynton “had a federal right to remain in the white portion of the restaurant” as the Interstate Commerce Act “forbids any interstate common carrier by motor vehicle to subject any person to unjust discrimination.” Justice Hugo Black delivered the majority opinion. The decision. The court ruled in a 7-2 decision in favor of Boynton. It held that interstate passengers were protected by the Interstate Commerce Act and the terminal's restaurant was a part of that facility. In part the decision read:  Effects of "Boynton". Justices Tom C. Clark and Charles Evans Whittaker dissented in the 7-2 decision. It was the first time since 1946 the court had split over matters of racial segregation.  "Boynton v. Virginia" paved the way and inspired the Freedom Riders to test the new ruling. Black and white riders rode together on Southern racially segregated buses beginning in 1961. After six months of protests and press coverage of the Freedom Riders, The Interstate Commerce Commission outlawed racial discrimination in seating passengers on interstate busses. It ordered the removal of "whites only" signs from all interstate bus terminals.
Gregg v. Georgia, "Proffitt v. Florida", "Jurek v. Texas", "Woodson v. North Carolina", and "Roberts v. Louisiana", were a group of landmark cases that the United States Supreme Court decided together in 1976. They had to do with capital punishment in the United States. In these cases, the Court ruled that the states could use capital punishment (the death penalty), but only if they followed certain rules. If the states did not follow these rules when they sentenced people to death, they would be violating the Constitution of the United States by giving out a cruel and unusual punishment. In 1972, the Court had ruled that the way Georgia was using the death penalty was unconstitutional. After this decision, all of the states stopped using the death penalty while they changed their capital punishment laws. Because of this, there were no executions in the United States between 1972 and 1976. However, in "Gregg v. Georgia", the Court ruled that Georgia's new death penalty law was constitutional, and they gave the state permission to execute Troy Leon Gregg. This ended the temporary stop on executions in the United States. It made it clear to the states that as long as they followed the rules set out in the "Gregg" decision, they could start using the death penalty again. History: "Furman v. Georgia". The "Gregg" case happened because of another Supreme Court case called "Furman v. Georgia," which the Court decided In 1972. In this case, three different men who had been sentenced to death argued that Georgia was giving them a cruel and unusual punishment. This is against the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which makes cruel and unusual punishments illegal. The Supreme Court agreed that when Georgia gave the death penalty to these three men, the state violated the Eighth Amendment. Different Supreme Court Justices said Georgia's death penalty was 'cruel and unusual' for different reasons. The death penalty was "arbitrary". Some Justices said that Georgia's use of the death penalty was "arbitrary." This meant that Georgia's courts gave the death penalty to some people and not to others, even when
A proof-of-work (POW) system is a system where finding a solution to a given problem is difficult and/or expensive, but verifying the solution to the given problem is simple and/or cheap.  Example. Find the positive integer whose sha256 hash value is:  c75cb66ae28d8ebc6eded002c28a8ba0d06d3a78c6b5cbf9b2ade051f0775ac4 To find this integer, you must compute the sha256 value for every integer starting with zero until you find the right value. While each individual computation is trivial and cheap, cumulatively the work adds up and becomes time consuming and expensive. To successfully reproduce the given hash value, you must do some work. Find some data whose sha256 hash value begins with at least 8 leading zeros:  000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f In the first example, the problem required the original value as proof that work had been done. In this example, it does not matter what the data is, only that it produces a hash value with the given constraints. Finding this data is difficult, but once found, it is trivial to verify by running it through sha256.
Ineffective assistance of counsel means that a lawyer (counsel) did not help their client defend themselves during a trial. "Ineffective assistance of counsel" is a complaint that a person can make if they have been convicted of a crime, and they want to argue that their trial was not fair. "Ineffective" means that something, or someone, did not work the way it should have. "Assistance" means "help." "Counsel" is a legal word for "lawyer." So by making a complaint of "ineffective assistance of counsel," a person is saying "my defense attorney did not help me enough." The right to a lawyer. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution says: "the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the assistance of counsel for his defence." When a person says they had ineffectiveness of counsel, they are saying their lawyer was so bad that they did not receive this right to a lawyer. Unfortunately, the Sixth Amendment only said that people had the right to have a lawyer. It did not give any more details about this right. Here are some examples of things it did not say: "Strickland v. Washington". The Supreme Court tried to answer some of these questions in a case called "Strickland v. Washington", . In this case, the court ruled that there were two things a defendant would have to show in order to prove that they had ineffective assistance of counsel. This became known as the "Strickland test": This second part was important. After "Stirickland", the states' appeals courts ruled that convictions were legal even in cases where the defense attorney: There was an important reason why these cases did not qualify as "ineffective assistance of counsel." The prisoners who brought the cases to the Supreme Court could not prove the second piece of the "Strickland test." They could not prove that if they had different lawyers, their trials would have turned out differently. There was so much evidence against them, and they were so obviously guilty, that the appeals courts decided having a different lawyer would not have made any difference. No lawyer could have saved these cases, the state courts basically said. Ineffective counsel &amp;
Barisal Sadar () is an Upazila of Barisal District in the Division of Barisal, Bangladesh. Population. The population of Barisal Sadar Upazila is 527,017. Males are 52.72% of the population, and females 47.28%. The population density is about 1625 people per km².
Peristalsis is a process of contraction and relaxation of the muscle around parts of the alimentary canal. Peristalsis is also a series of contractions that pass from the mouth to the stomach. The most familiar example of this is in the oesophagus. In the oesophagus, peristalsis pushes the ball of food down the oesophagus. The smooth muscle of the oesophagus contracts and relaxes in sequence, and this pushes the ball of food down the oesophagus. The muscle is worked by a nervous mechanism called the "migrating motor complex". This works in one direction only, and also works in the lower regions of the digestive system.
The Institut supérieur de l'aéronautique et de l'espace (ISAE-SUPAERO; ) is a renowned graduate engineering school in France. It is in a campus of the University of Toulouse (South France). Its different curricula lead to the following French &amp; European degrees : Academic activities and industrial applied research are performed mainly in French and English languages. Students from a lot of nationalities participate to the different curricula at SUPAERO. Most of the 1600 graduate engineer students at ISAE-SUPAERO live in dedicated residential buildings nearby research labs and metro public transports. History. The school results from the "École nationale supérieure de l'aéronautique et de l'espace" (created In 1909) and the "École nationale supérieure d'ingénieurs de construction aéronautique" (created in 1946). Admission. Admission to the "Supaero engineering Programme" implemented at ISAE is possible after two/three year scientific undergraduate studies and requires success to either: The "Supaero Programme" typically lasts three years and results in a master's degree, augmented with international experience. Thus undergraduate studies + the Supaero Programme account for more than a cumulated 300 ECTS credits as applicable in the European education system. However, graduate students enrolled in the TIME double degree procedure are required to spend two-years at ISAE and spend two years in the TIME-partner institute for a total of four years resulting in a double master's degree. Research labs. Research activities at ISAE relate to the following topics:
The Libertarian Party (Spanish: Partido Libertario or P-LIB) is a Spanish political party. It was formed in 2009. It is currently led by Juan Pina. The party believes in classical liberalism and that government should stay out of economics. They also believe in objectivism. They believethat governments should only be able to protect people from violence, theft, fraud, and other actions that go against people's rights. The party is open to some more libertarian and anarcho-capitalism ideas. There are two groups within the party; the Objectivist and Radicals. Most party members aren't involved with these groups. The party took part in the 2011 Spanish general election in Madrid and Zaragoza. They received about 7,000 votes to the Senate and over 2,000 (0.01 %) to the Congress.
European Canadians (sometimes called Euro-Canadians) are Canadians with ancestry from Europe. As of 2011, there were 25,186,890 European Canadians in Canada. The French were the first Europeans to live in Canada permanently. Hélène Desportes was the first "white" person born in New France. She was born in 1620. In 2006, most European Canadians had English ancestry (21.03%). Other common ancestries were French (15.82%), Scottish (15.11%), Irish (13.94%), German (10.18%) then Italian (4.63%). However, 32.22% of people said they had Canadian ancestry. Because of this, some people think the numbers for the English and French ancestry are too low. Most European Canadians are Christian. A small number of them are Jews, Deists, Agnostics, Atheists, Muslims, Bahá'ís, Paganists/Wiccas and Unitarian Universalists. Most also speak English and French.
Latin American Canadians are Canadians with ancestry from Latin America. They may also be called "Latino Canadian" and "Latin Canadian". As of 2011, there were 381,280 Latin American Canadians in Canada. Most Latin American Canadians speak two or more languages. They usually speak Spanish and/or Portuguese along with English and French. A lot of Latin American Canadians came to Canada in the late 20th century. They came to Canada because it has better economic opportunities than their native country. Some Cubans came to Canada to escape Fidel Castro's regime. Other Latino Americans left their country because Canada offered freedom from war. In 2011, most Latin American Canadians had Mexican ancestry (18.6%). Other common ancestries were Colombian (16.2%), Salvadoran (11.7%), Peruvian (7.1%), Chilean (6.7%) and Brazilian (6.1%). Almost all Latino American Canadians are Christian.
Roper v. Simmons, , was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute a person for crimes they committed before they were 18 years old. This decision affected 25 states in the country, which still allowed executions of children under age 18. Also, the decision reversed the Court's past ruling in "Stanford v. Kentucky", , which had said that executions of children ages 1618 were sometimes legal.  History. The first known "juvenile" (child under the age of 18) to be executed in America was Thomas Granger. In 1642, he was executed at age 16 or 17 for sodomy. Between 1642 and 2016, 364 juveniles have been executed in the United States.  Until 1988, the Supreme Court had put no limits on how old a person had to be in order to be executed. This meant each state could set their own rules. In some states, the minimum age for execution was as low as 14. For example, in 1944, South Carolina executed a 14-year-old boy named George Stinney in the electric chair. Stinney was the youngest person in the United States to be convicted and executed during the 20th century. Juvenile executions were much more common earlier on. However, between 1976 and 2005, twenty-two juveniles were executed. The Supreme Court started to set some limits on juvenile executions in the late 1980s. In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled in "Thompson v. Oklahoma" that children under the age of sixteen could not be executed. However, the next year, in "Stanford v. Kentucky", the Court ruled that juveniles ages 16 and 17 could be given the death penalty. Background. Crime and trial. The "Simmons" case started in Missouri in 1993. Christopher Simmons, who was 17, made a plan to murder a woman named Shirley Crook. He brought two younger friends, Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, into the plan. They planned to break into Crook's house, steal things, tie
A peremptory challenge is a right during voir dire (the process of selecting a jury) to reject a certain number of potential jurors without having to give a reason. The word "peremptory" means without a reason given; allowing no contradiction or refusal. Peremptory challenges may be made by either party to the proceedings. This kind of challenge has been more difficult to use because the Supreme Court of the United States has prohibited peremptory challenges (also called peremptory strikes) based on gender or race. Different jurisdictions allow different numbers of peremptory challenges to each side. Some jurisdictions allow additional peremptory challenges. In United States federal courts each side is allowed three peremptory challenges. Also, if there are more than two parties involved in the proceeding the court may allow additional challenges or restrict the number for all parties. Peremptory vs for cause. To insure an impartial jury, during voir dire, prospective jurors are questioned by the lawyers and the court. Either lawyer may challenge a juror for cause. Reasons may include the prospective juror's opinions on issues, personal knowledge of the case, their occupation or any reason to believe the juror may not be able to be fair. Unlike peremptory challenges, challenges for cause may not be limited to a certain number in most jurisdictions. The reason for either type of challenge is that each lawyer is trying to find jurors who are sympathetic to their case. History. The peremptory challenge has its roots in Roman law. Both parties would propose up to 100 prospective jurors, then each could strike 50. This left a total of 100 jurors on the jury. In English common law, a prosecutor had an unlimited number of peremptory challenges while the defendant has 35. In 1305, the Parliament of England eliminated all peremptory challenges for the prosecution. In 1988, Parliament eliminated all peremptory challenges for the defense. Peremptory challenges came to the United States with the colonists and Common Law. Peremptory challenges remained much the same until the late 20th century. Peremptory challenges and the Supreme Court. The following observation is attributed to Mark Twain: While the right to use per
Batson v. Kentucky, , was a landmark decision in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges in a criminal case may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term "Batson challenge", an objection to a peremptory challenge. This is based on the standard established by the Supreme Court's decision in this case. Later decisions have resulted in the extension of "Batson" to civil cases. For example, in "Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company", the Court allowed private litigants to use this challenge. The Supreme Court also allowed it in cases are excluded on the basis of gender as in "J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.". The principle had been established previously by several state courts, including the California Supreme Court in 1978, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 1979 and the Florida Supreme Court in 1984. Background. James Kirkland Batson was an African American man convicted of burglary and receipt of stolen goods in a Louisville, Kentucky circuit court by a jury composed entirely of white jurors. The key part of his appeal was based on the "voir dire" (jury selection) phase of the trial. During this phase potential jurors are examined by the Court, the prosecution, and the defense, to determine their competence, willingness, and suitability to hear, deliberate and decide a case put to them in order to render a verdict. During "voir dire" the judge can dismiss jurors and both the prosecution and the defense have a limited number of peremptory challenges which they use to excuse any juror for any reason. Each side does this to help their case. Each side also may dismiss jurors for cause (for example, bias). In "Batson", the judge dismissed several potential jurors for various causes. The defense peremptorily challenged nine potential jurors and the prosecution peremptorily challenged six, including all four black persons. As a result, only white persons were selected. The defense counsel moved to discharge the whole jury on the ground that the prosecutor's
Citizenship in the United States means being a citizen of the United States. A person who has citizenship is called a citizen. Citizenship does not just mean that a person lives in the United States. United States citizenship gives people many rights, many protections, and also some duties.  Types of citizenship. There are two ways that people can become citizens of the United States. The first is called "birthright citizenship." Anybody who is born in the United States automatically becomes a United States citizen. The second is called "naturalization." This is for people who were born outside the United States. A person becomes a "naturalized citizen" if they apply for citizenship and are approved. Once a person is a naturalized citizen, they have all of the same rights, protections, and duties as a person who was born in the United States. What it means to be a citizen. Rights. Being a United States citizen gives a person many rights. Here is a list of some of these rights. Duties. Citizenship also comes with duties. Here are some of those duties. Renouncement of citizenship. Americans are permitted to formally abandon their citizenship, even if they do not possess another citizenship and become stateless as a result. Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, was an American citizen because he was born there. He renounced his American citizenship in 2016. 5411 other Americans renounced their citizenship in the same year.
Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974), was a landmark case decided by a United States federal court called the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case had to do with the rights of prisoners at Mississippi State Penitentiary (usually called "Parchman"). "Gates v. Collier" is a very important case for prisoners' rights. It was the first case to rule that many types of physical punishment against prisoners are cruel and unusual punishment, and are against the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It was also the first time that the Supreme Court started supervising how the country's prisons were being run. Background. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution says that the state cannot give cruel and unusual punishments to anyone. Parchman opened in 1903. At the prison, there was a program called the "trusty system." This was a system where some prisoners had more rights and freedoms than others. They also had power over the other inmates. The Governor of Mississippi, James K. Vardaman, said the prison was run “like an efficient slave plantation.” Trusties had guns and were allowed to shoot at prisoners who stepped out of line. Other punishments were painful and severe. The prison also segregated (separated) black and white prisoners.  For years, there were protests over civil rights abuses at Parchman. Eventually, civil rights lawyer Roy Haber began to collect evidence of the abuse. With Haber as their lawyer, four prisoners filed a lawsuit in federal court, saying that conditions at the prison were cruel and unusual. They said that prison trusties and guards punished and tortured prisoners in ways that were painful and humiliating on purpose. Lower court decision. The prisoners' lawsuit, "Gates v. Collier", 349 F. Supp. 881 (1972), went first to a federal court called the United States District Court N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division. This court ruled strongly in favor of the prisoners The court found that Parchman's trusties and guards gave many cruel and unusual punishments, including:  The court ruled that the prison had violated the prisoner's rights under the
Sher-e-Bangla Medical College (SBMC), is a government medical school in Bangladesh, established in 1968. It is located in Barisal. History. Construction began on the college on 6 November 1964, at that time it was known as Barisal Medical College. Campus. There are three hostels for male students and two for the female students. Both male and female intern doctors have each one hostel for them.
The diaeresis (plural: diaereses) is also spelled diæresis or dieresis. It is a diacritical mark: two dots ( ¨ ) put over a letter, usually a vowel. It is most often used in this way: