Context and question: Richmond has a humid subtropical climate (Koppen Cfa), with hot and humid summers and generally cool winters. The mountains to the west act as a partial barrier to outbreaks of cold, continental air in winter; Arctic air is delayed long enough to be modified, then further warmed as it subsides in its approach to Richmond. The open waters of the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean contribute to the humid summers and mild winters. The coldest weather normally occurs from late December to early February, and the January daily mean temperature is 37.9 F (3.3 C), with an average of 6.0 days with highs at or below the freezing mark. Downtown areas straddle the border between USDA Hardiness zones 7B and 8A, and temperatures seldom lower to 0 F (18 C), with the most recent subzero (F) reading occurring on January 28, 2000, when the temperature reached 1 F (18 C). The July daily mean temperature is 79.3 F (26.3 C), and high temperatures reach or exceed 90 F (32 C) approximately 43 days out of the year; while 100 F (38 C) temperatures are not uncommon, they do not occur every year. Extremes in temperature have ranged from 12 F (24 C) on January 19, 1940 up to 107 F (42 C) on August 6, 1918.[a]
What geographic feature keeps some cold inland air from reaching Richmond?
Answer: mountains
Context and question: The United States Supreme Court in Penry v. Lynaugh and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Bigby v. Dretke have been clear in their decisions that jury instructions in death penalty cases that do not ask about mitigating factors regarding the defendant's mental health violate the defendant's Eighth Amendment rights, saying that the jury is to be instructed to consider mitigating factors when answering unrelated questions. This ruling suggests that specific explanations to the jury are necessary to weigh mitigating factors.
What court heard the case Penry v. Lynaugh?
Answer: United States Supreme Court
Context and question: There were even Verdingkinder auctions where children were handed over to the farmer asking the least amount of money from the authorities, thus securing cheap labour for his farm and relieving the authority from the financial burden of looking after the children. In the 1930s 20% of all agricultural labourers in the Canton of Bern were children below the age of 15. Swiss municipality guardianship authorities acted so, commonly tolerated by federal authorities, to the 1960s, not all of them of course, but usually communities affected of low taxes in some Swiss cantons Swiss historian Marco Leuenberger investigated, that in 1930 there were some 35,000 indentured children, and between 1920 and 1970 more than 100,000 are believed to have been placed with families or homes. 10,000 Verdingkinder are still alive. Therefore, the so-called Wiedergutmachungsinitiative was started in April 2014. In April 2014 the collection of targeted at least authenticated 100,000 signatures of Swiss citizens has started, and still have to be collected to October 2015.
What happened at Verdingkinder auctions?
Answer:
children were handed over to the farmer asking the least amount of money