the-french-artist/wikipedia_20220301.simple_sentence_split huggingface dataset:
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 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.
Boynton v. Virginia,  The 1961 Freedom Rides
The Freedom Rides of 1961, Testing Boynton v. Virginia
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 they committed the same crime, for no good reason.
Here is an example of arbitrary punishment: Twenty people in twenty different parts of Georgia commit murder.
They are tried in twenty different courts.
A few get the death penalty, and the rest get sent to prison.
There is no legal reason why some people got the death penalty and the others did not.
Since there is no good reason why some people got the death penalty while others did not, this punishment is arbitrary.
The death penalty was "discriminatory"
Other Justices said Georgia's use of the death penalty was discriminatory.
They wrote that black defendants seemed more likely to get the death penalty than whites.
This would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that the states must give every person "the equal protection of the laws."
If a certain group, like black people, is more likely to get the death penalty just because of their race, they are not being treated equally under the laws.
The death penalty stops
After Furman, all of the states stopped using the death penalty so they could change their capital punishment laws.
They wanted these new laws to make sure the death penalty would not be given in an arbitrary or discriminatory way.
By early 1975, thirty states had passed new death penalty laws that they thought would satisfy the Supreme Court and let them use the death penalty in a constitutional way.
Background of the case
Gregg started out as five separate cases in five different states: Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana.
After the Furman decision, the states of Georgia, Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Louisiana changed their death penalty laws to obey the Supreme Court's decision in Furman.
After this, the five defendants in these cases  Troy Leon Gregg, Charles William Proffitt, Jerry Jurek, James Tyrone Woodson, and Stanislaus Roberts  were each convicted of murder.
Each was sentenced to death.
Each defendant appealed to their state's Supreme Court.
Each of the five state Supreme Courts said the death sentences were fair and legal.
Next, the defendants asked the United States Supreme Court to decide whether their death sentences were constitutional.
In Furman, the Court had ruled that the death penalty was sometimes cruel and unusual punishment.
These five defendants were asking the Supreme Court to rule that the death penalty was always cruel and unusual punishment.
If the Court ruled this way, it would make the death penalty unconstitutional in the entire United States.
The death penalty would be illegal in every state in the country.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases, but they combined them all into one case.
This one case is usually called Gregg v. Georgia, because the entire name of the case is very long.
Legal questions
The United States Supreme Court was trying to answer a few legal questions in Gregg.
The most important were:
Does the death penalty always violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Is it always cruel and unusual punishment?
If not, what laws do the states have to have to protect defendants' rights?
What did states need to include in their laws to make sure they were not using the death penalty in cruel and unusual ways?
The Court planned to use the new death penalty laws written by Georgia, Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Louisiana as examples.
Did these laws set out rules for who could get the death penalty, and why?
Were these rules fair and legal?
Would these rules make sure the death penalty was not used in cruel, unusual, or unfair ways?
The Court ruled 7-2 that the death penalty is not always cruel and unusual punishment.
(The two Justices who disagreed, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, had already said in Furman that they thought capital punishment was always cruel and unusual.)
There have to be objective criteria for when the state can and cannot use the death penalty.
All death sentences have to be reviewed by appeals courts.
These courts will help make sure each death sentence was based on objective criteria (like facts and evidence).
Death sentences cannot be mandatory (required for anyone who commits a certain crime).
Each judge or jury has to be able to decide whether their individual defendant deserves the death penalty.
When the judge or jury decides this, they must be able to think about things like details of the individual defendant's crime and their behavior.
Specifically, the Court said that Georgia's, Florida's, and Texas's new death penalty laws met these requirements.
This meant these laws were constitutional, and these states could go back to executing people.
The Court ruled that North Carolina's and Louisiana's new laws did not meet the requirements, because they made the death penalty mandatory (required in all cases) for some crimes.
This meant these laws were still unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Gregg was important for several reasons:
It made it clear that the death penalty would remain legal in the United States
However, it set rules for how the death penalty had to be given
It also added extra protections for defendants
It allowed states to start using the death penalty again
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.
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.
University of Barisal (  also known as Barisal University or simply BU), is a public university located in Barisal, a city in southern Bangladesh.
It is the only general public university in Barishal division and the country's 33rd public university.
It was established in 2011 and started educational activities on 25 January 2012.
Colleges and universities in Bangladesh
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:
Was any lawyer good enough?
Did he have to be a good lawyer?
If so, how good?
How could the laws measure whether a lawyer was good enough to give a client a fair trial?
If a defendant got an unfair trial because of ineffective assistance of counsel, what should happen to the defendant?
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":
Their lawyer made mistakes that were "so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment."
The lawyer's mistakes prevented the defendant from having a fair trial.
If the defendant had a competent attorney, the result of their trial would have been different.
They would have been found not guilty and set free, or they would have gotten a sentence less severe than the death penalty
This second part was important.
After Stirickland, the states' appeals courts ruled that convictions were legal even in cases where the defense attorney:
Fell asleep during the trial
Was drunk throughout the trial
Was senile
Was mentally ill and talking about his delusions during the trial
Was a convicted felon who was working on writing questions in court as part of his punishment (he had no legal training).
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 & the death penalty
The issue of ineffective counsel is important in the debate over capital punishment in the United States.
Over one out of every four of these people were exonerated because an appeals court ruled they had received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Appeal court
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.
Subdivisions of Bangladesh
Or Peristalsis is a series of wave of contraction that Pass from one end to other
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).
Ingénieur SUPAERO (SUPAERO Graduate engineer Masters level program)
Master of Science & Doctorat (PhD doctorate studies )
Mastères Spécialisés (MS) (In partnership with the French Civil Aviation University)
Students from a lot of nationalities participate to the different curricula at SUPAERO.
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 to the Supaero engineering Programme implemented at ISAE is possible after two/three year scientific undergraduate studies and requires success to either:
an admission exam for Bachelors of Sciences ;
a French nationwide selective exam with numerus clausus : concours Mines-Ponts (3-year curriculum including at least 2 years in France)
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.
Aerodynamics, energetics, propulsion
Mechanics of structure and materials
Electronics, optronics and signal
Mathematics, computer science, automatics
Languages, arts, cultures, societies
Aeronautics and Space Centre
Notable graduate
The Libertarian Party (Spanish: Partido Libertario or P-LIB) is a Spanish political party.
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.
Official website (in Spanish)
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%).
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.
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.
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 Crook up, and throw her off a bridge.
Tessmer dropped out of the plan at the last minute.
However, Simmons and Benjamin broke into Crook's home, drove her to a state park, and threw her off a bridge.
Simmons and Benjamin were caught and put on trial.
There was a lot of evidence of what they had done.
Simmons had admitted to the murder.
Tessmer testifid against Simmons and said Simmons had planned the crime ahead of time.
(In American law, thinking about killing someone ahead of time makes the killing first degree murder.)
The jury found Simmons guilty, and recommended a death sentence.
The judge agreed.
Simmons appealed his conviction.
Each appeals court which heard his case agreed with the original jury's death sentence.
Then the United States Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia 536 U.S. 304 (2002) that executing people with intellectual disabilities was unconstitutional.
Encouraged, Simmons filed a new petition to the Supreme Court of Missouri.
That court decided that "a national consensus has developed against the execution of juvenile offenders," meaning that across the country, most Americans disagreed with executing juveniles.
The court ruled that executing juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment, which violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
They changed Simmons' sentence from death to life in prison.
The State of Missouri appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court.
The Court agreed to hear the case.
This case divided the Supreme Court.
In a vote of 5-4, they ruled that it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute people who were juveniles when they committed their crimes.
This means that executing these people is against the Eighth Amendment, and is unconstitutional.
This decision made it illegal for any state in the country to execute someone who was under the age of 18 when they committed their crime.
The Court had a few reasons for making this decision.
First, they argued that juveniles are not as mature as adults.
They wrote that there is a lot of research showing that:
Teenagers are more reckless and more likely to make decisions without thinking them through
Teenagers have less control over their behavior
Teenagers are more likely to do things because of peer pressure, not because they want to
Finally, the Court looked at what other countries in the world did.
They wrote that:
Only 7 countries other than the United States had ever executed juvenile offenders: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and China
However, since 1990, each of these 7 countries had stopped using the death penalty for juvenile offenders
The United States was the only country left in the world that executed juvenile offenders
Effects on other death row prisoners
When the Supreme Court decided Roper, there were 72 other prisoners in the United States who were on death row because of crimes they committed as juveniles:
These people were not set free.
However, their death sentences were automatically cancelled and they were sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison instead.
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.
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
In Turner v. Murray, , the Court held that in "special circumstances" judges must question potential jurors about racial prejudice to prevent a biased jury.
In Batson v. Kentucky, , prosecutors may not use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race as it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Tanner v. United States, , the Court held that a jury verdict would not be overturned even when the jury had been consuming copious amounts of alcohol, marijuana and cocaine during the trial and deliberations.
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..
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 removal of the black jurors violated petitioner's rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to a jury drawn from a cross section of the community, and under the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection of the laws.
Without expressly ruling on petitioner's request for a Hearing, the trial judge denied the motion, and the jury ultimately convicted the defendant.
The defendant appealed his conviction to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction.
That court cited Swain v. Alabama, and held that a defendant claiming lack of a fair cross section must demonstrate systematic exclusion of a group of jurors from the panel of prospective jurors.
That is, the defendant had to show that not just in his case, but as a process, juries in his community did not represent a cross section of that community.
Batson continued his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to decide whether petitioner was tried "in violation of constitutional provisions guaranteeing the defendant an impartial jury and a jury composed of persons representing a fair cross section of the community."
The Supreme Court's decision
In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice Lewis Powell, the Supreme Court ruled in Batson's favor.
The court overruled Swain v. Alabama by lowering the burden of proof that a defendant must meet to make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination.
In Swain, the Court had recognized that a "State's purposeful or deliberate denial to Negroes on account of race of participation as jurors in the administration of justice violates the Equal Protection Clause", but that the defendant had the burden of proving a systematic striking of black jurors throughout the county, that is, that the peremptory challenge system as a whole was being perverted.
In Batson the court ruled that the defendant could make a prima facie case for purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection by relying on the record only in his own case.
The Court explained:
A State denies a black defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposely excluded;
A defendant has no right to a petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race.
However, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race, or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors
The peremptory challenge occupies an important position in trial procedures.
Justice Marshall, concurring with the majority, called the decision "historic" but added: "The decision today will not end the racial discrimination that peremptories inject into the jury-selection process.
That goal can be accomplished only by eliminating peremptory challenges entirely."
Dissents
In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger argued that the court's decision in Batson "sets aside the peremptory challenge, a procedure which has been part of the common law for many centuries and part of our jury system for nearly 200 years".
He believed the majority was replacing peremptory challenges with something very similar to challenge for cause, but was unclear in explaining the standard to be applied. "
I am at a loss to discern the governing principles here," he wrote. "
I join my colleagues in wishing the nation's judges well as they struggle to grasp how to implement today's holding."
Whether the principles of Batson applied retroactively to anyone convicted previously by juries whose racial composition was influenced by peremptory challenges not consistent with this opinion was for a time uncertain.
In Allen v. Hardy (1986), the Court held that it did not apply retroactively to collateral review of final convictions.
In Griffith v. Kentucky (1987), it decided it would apply it in cases on direct review.
Batson challenge
The term Batson challenge describes an objection to opposing counsel's use of a peremptory challenge to exclude a juror from the jury pool based on criteria the courts have found disqualifying, as race was the sole rationale for exclusion in Batson.
In some cases, parties have appealed a verdict or judgment and asked it be made invalid because one or more peremptory challenges excluded a recognizable group from the jury.
Though the Batson decision addressed jury selection in criminal trials, in 1991 the Supreme Court later extended the same rule to civil trials in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company.
In 1994, in  J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel.
T.B.., the Court held that peremptory challenges based on sex alone violated the standard established in Batson as well.
SmithKline v. Abbott
Polearms were long sticks that had a blade on the side.
They were similar to an axe, but much longer.
They were also used by women in ancient Japan.
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
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.
What it means to be a citizen
Being a United States citizen gives a person many rights.
Here is a list of some of these rights.
Freedom to live and work in the United States.
Once a person is a citizen, nobody can take away their right to live in the United States.
Nobody can make them leave the country.
The government cannot deport a citizen, like it can with non-citizens.
Freedom to enter and leave the United States.
Citizens can leave the United States for any amount of time they want to.
They can always come back.
Freedom to choose the government by voting.
Voting is free and secret.
Nobody can be told they cannot vote because of their race, ethnicity, skin color, home country, disability, age, gender, or the language they speak.
Citizens do not have to vote.
Citizenship also comes with duties.
Here are some of those duties.
Only citizens can serve on juries.
Military participation (if needed).
Citizens do not have to serve in the United States military.
As of 2016, the United States has an all-volunteer military.
However, in the past, the United States has used "a draft" to call people up to serve as soldiers.
This has not happened since the Vietnam War.
Still, male United States citizens have to sign up with the Selective Service System so they could be called up if there were a draft in the future.
All American citizens, including those who live in other countries permanently, must file a federal income tax report (called a "return"), even if they do not live in the United States.
United States citizens are taxed on their income no matter where in the world they live or earn that money.
Laws and loyalty.
When a person becomes a United States citizen, they take an oath that says they promise they will be loyal to the United States; follow the laws of the United States; and obey the Constitution.
Benefits and protections
Consular protection while traveling in other countries.
The United States has consulates, or embassies, in most other countries.
Their job is to help American citizens who have problems in those countries.
If a citizen is traveling in another country and gets arrested, they can ask to speak to someone from the U.S. Embassy.
The Embassy can give advice and may be able to help.
It is easier to sponsor relatives who want to come to the United States: To get some types of immigrant visas (called IR and F visas), a person must be related to a U.S. citizen.
Citizens' children become citizens even if they are born in other countries.
Usually, if both parents are United States citizens, and their child is born in another country, the child automatically becomes a United States citizen.
If only one parent is a U.S. citizen, it depends on how long that parent has been in the United States.
Protection from deportation.
Once a person becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen, they cannot be deported.
Protection from losing citizenship.
Once a person has United States citizenship, no one (including the United States government) can take it away from them, unless the person asks to give up their citizenship or gained naturalization illegally.
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.
10 Steps to Naturalization: Understanding the Process of Becoming a U.S. Citizen (in Simple English)
United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (official website about citizenship and naturalization issues)
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.
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:
Shooting at or around prisoners, sometimes hitting them
Taking away prisoners' clothes
Turning fans on prisoners while they were naked and wet
Not giving inmates food, mattresses, or items for hygiene
Handcuffing prisoners to fences or bars
Using a cattle prod on prisoners
Forcing prisoners to stand for long periods of time
Putting inmates in stress positions (positions that are painful)
The court ruled that the prison had violated the prisoner's rights under the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
The court ordered the prison to make many different changes to fix these abuses.
It also ordered the prison to end the trusty system.
Fifth Circuit decision
The state of Mississippi appealed this decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
However, the Fifth Circuit also agreed with the lower court's earlier decision.
Federal Judge William C. Keady wrote that Parchman Farm had violated "modern standards of decency.
He ordered an immediate end to all unconstitutional conditions and practices.
The Fifth Circuit Court ruled that Parchman was using cruel and unusual punishments on its prisoners.
It was violating their rights to be protected by the laws  which apply to prisoners, too.
After the court decision, Parchman had to end its trusty system.
It also stopped segregating its prisoners.
After the court decision, other states that used the trusty system had to stop using it too.
These states included Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas.
This decision also set some important precedents.
One is that even prisoners have the right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment.
Americans' constitutional rights do not all stop when a person goes to prison.
It also limited the type of punishments that prisons can use.
Sher-e-Bangla Medical College (SBMC), is a government medical school in  Bangladesh, established in 1968.
It is located in Barisal.
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.
With a diacritic, one vowel is sounded separately from its neighbour.
So, in the word zöology, it is pronounced as a long 'o' followed by a short 'o'.
Without the diaeresis, it might be pronounced like the word 'zoo'.
It is sometimes described as "two vowel sounds occurring in adjacent syllables".
It is often used in names where the last vowel is sounded, as in Chloë or Brontë.
Umlauts: A diacritic above a vowel can mark a sound shift, forming a new letter (Ä, Ö, Ü).
The Château de Saint Cloud was a château in Paris, France.
It was sometimes called the Palace of Saint Cloud.
It was burned down during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870.
It was once a private property of Queen Marie Antoinette.
Since December 2006, there has been a movement to rebuild the Château de Saint-Cloud.
The building was originally called the "he Hôtel d'Aulnay".
In the 16h century, it was expanded into a château by the Gondi banking family.
The estate was in the hands of the Gondi family till 1658.
At that time it was bought by Philippe of France, Duke of Orléans, the only brother of Louis XIV of France.
The estate remained the personal property of the descendants of Philippe of France.
It was a country residence, as opposed to the Palais Royal in the center of Paris.
Queen Marie Antoinette
After negotiating for a long time, the Château de Saint-Cloud was bought in 1785 by Louis XVI.
He bought it for Marie Antoinette.
She thought that the air of Saint-Cloud would be good for her children.
Louis Philippe, Duke of Orléans, who had not visited the château since his morganatic marriage to his mistress Madame de Montesson, sold it for 6,000,000 livres.
Marie Antoinette started changing Saint-Cloud in 1787-1788.
She used her preferred architect Richard Mique.
He had also decorated parts of the Palace of Versailles for the queen.
Emperor Napoléon III
During the Second Empire, Emperor Napoléon III and Empress Eugénie held their imperial court at Saint-Cloud during the spring and the autumn.
There was also a reception for Queen Victoria in honour of her 1855 visit to France.
In 1859, a model railway was built in the private park.
It was built for Napoléon, Prince Imperial, the 3-year-old son of emperor Napoléon III,.
Napoléon III et la reine Victoria.
Une visite à l’Exposition Universelle de 1855
Official site of the Domaine National de Saint-Cloud
An essential oil is a liquid from a plant.
Essential oils contain chemical compounds that are useful for their scent.
They are used in aromatherapy.
Perfumes are made with essential oils.
Around the world, essential oils are being studied in modern clinical trials to test ancient claims of healing.
They are being studied for their effectiveness as antibacterial agents, fungicides, insecticides, pain relief, stress reduction, and skin problems.
The name essential oil comes from theories in the Middle Ages of a fifth element.
People than believed that there were four basic elements that everything was made of: fire, water, air and earth.
The elusive "soul" of things was called the quintessential element or the fifth element.
Over time, quintessential was shortened to essential.
Alchemists said that this element could change iron to gold.
Some believed it held the planets in their orbits.
Producing the essential oil
Most essential oils today are steam distilled.
This process separates out the aromatic essential oils from the solid plant matter.
With steam distillation, it can take thousands of pounds of plant matter to create just one liter of essential oil.
Other methods include expelling and solvent extraction.
Expelling is using pressure to squeeze the essential oil out of the plant.
This method is generally used for citrus oils.
Solvent extraction uses substances such as carbon dioxide to extract the essential oil.
This method is used for delicate plants such as rose and jasmine, which can be too fragile to go through the distillation process.
A birch tree is a thinleaved deciduous hardwood tree of the genus Betula.
They are in the family Betulaceae, which also includes alders, hazels, and hornbeams.
Betula contains 30 to 60 species of which 11 are on the IUCN 2011 Green List of Threatened Species.
They are usually rather short-lived pioneer species widespread in the Northern Hemisphere.
Brown v. Board of Education II (often called Brown II) was a Supreme Court case decided in 1955.
The year before, the Supreme Court had decided Brown v. Board of Education, which made racial segregation in schools illegal.
However, many all-white schools in the United States had not followed this ruling and still had not integrated (allowed black children into) their schools.
In Brown II, the Court ordered them to integrate their schools "with all deliberate speed."
In Brown II, the Supreme Court also set out rules about what schools needed to do to de-segregate.
Finally, it explained how the United States government would make sure the schools did de-segregate.
After the Supreme Court decided the original Brown case, it planned to hear arguments during its next court session about just how school de-segregation was going to happen.
Segregation in United States schools had existed for centuries.
The Court understood that it would not be easy to get the states to follow its ruling and de-segregate their schools.
Also, in its ruling in Brown, the Court had not given the states any instructions for how to end school segregation.
The Court had also not given the states a deadline for when they needed to de-segregate their schools.
These were all details that the Supreme Court needed to decide in Brown II.
Combined cases
When it decided the original Brown case in 1954, the Supreme Court had combined Brown with four other cases.
The Court decided all five cases together as one, which it called Brown v. Board of Education.
This meant that in Brown II, the Court was again deciding about five different cases.
Bolling v. Sharp (filed in Washington, D.C.)
Briggs v. Elliot (filed in South Carolina)
Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (filed in Virginia)
Gebhart v. Belton (filed in Delaware)
There were a few legal questions that the Supreme Court had to decide in Brown II.
What rules should the Court set to make sure schools de-segregated?
What rules should the Court set about when schools had to de-segregate?
If the schools had violated black students' rights by not following the original Brown decision, what should be done?
What relief should the students get?
(What could the Court do to fix the problem?)
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), whose lawyers had won Brown, argued that school de-segregation should begin right away.
The states argued back that this would be too difficult and too expensive, and that they needed more time to de-segregate.
In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ordered the states to start trying to obey the Brown decision and de-segregate their schools.
It ordered the states to start making plans about how they were going to integrate their schools.
However, the Court refused to order the schools to integrate right away, like the NAACP had wanted.
It also did not set any clear deadline for when schools needed to be de-segregated.
In the Court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the states should integrate "with all deliberate speed."