text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
In Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858 , this Court held that the selection of a jury in a felony trial without a defendant's consent is not one of the "additional duties" that magistrates may be assigned under the Federal Magistrates Act. That decision rested on the lack of both an express statutory provision for de novo review and an explicit congressional intent to permit magistrates to conduct voir dire absent the parties' consent. And it was compelled by concerns that a defendant might have a constitutional right to demand that an Article III judge preside at every critical stage of a felony trial and that the procedure deprived an individual of an important privilege, if not a right. In this case, petitioner Peretz consented to the assignment of a Magistrate to conduct the voir dire and supervise the jury selection for his felony trial, never asked the District Court to review the Magistrate's rulings, and raised no objection regarding jury selection at trial. However, on appeal from his conviction, he contended that it was error to assign the jury selection to the Magistrate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on the ground that Gomez requires reversal only in cases in which the magistrate has acted without the defendant's consent.
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. 940. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 952.
Joel B. Rudin argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Richard W. Levitt and Joel Brenner.
Deputy Solicitor General Bryson argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Starr, Assistant Attorney General Mueller, Michael R. Lazerwitz, and Joseph Douglas Wilson.
JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Federal Magistrates Act grants district courts authority to assign magistrates certain described functions as well as "such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States." 1 In Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858 (1989), we held that those "additional duties" do not encompass the selection of a jury in a [501 U.S. 923, 925] felony trial without the defendant's consent. In this case, we consider whether the defendant's consent warrants a different result.
Petitioner and a codefendant were charged with importing four kilograms of heroin. At a pretrial conference attended by both petitioner and his counsel, the District Judge asked if there was "[a]ny objection to picking the jury before a magistrate?" App. 2. Petitioner's counsel responded: "I would love the opportunity." Ibid. Immediately before the jury selection commenced, the Magistrate asked for, and received, assurances from counsel for petitioner and from counsel for his codefendant that she had their clients' consent to proceed with the jury selection. 2 She then proceeded to conduct the voir dire and to supervise the selection of the jury. Neither defendant asked the District Court to review any ruling made by the Magistrate.
The District Judge presided at the jury trial, which resulted in the conviction of petitioner and the acquittal of his codefendant. In the District Court, petitioner raised no objection to the fact that the Magistrate had conducted the voir dire. On appeal, however, he contended that it was error to assign the jury selection to the Magistrate and that our decision in Gomez required reversal. The Court of Appeals disagreed. Relying on its earlier decision in United States v. Musacchia, 900 F.2d 493 (CA2 1990), it held "that explicit consent by a defendant to magistrate-supervised voir dire waives any subsequent challenge on those grounds," and affirmed petitioner's conviction. App. to Pet. for Cert. 2a; 904 F.2d 34 (1990) (affirmance order). [501 U.S. 923, 926]
In Musacchia, the Second Circuit had affirmed a conviction in a case in which the defendant had not objected to jury selection by the Magistrate. The Court of Appeals concluded that our holding in Gomez applied only to cases in which the magistrate had acted without the defendant's consent. The court explained:
Our holding in Gomez was narrow. We framed the question presented as "whether presiding at the selection of a jury in a felony trial without the defendant's consent is among those `additional duties'" that district courts may assign to magistrates. 490 U.S., at 860 (emphasis added). We held that a magistrate "exceeds his jurisdiction" by selecting a jury "despite the defendant's objection." Id., at 876. Thus, our holding was carefully limited to the situation in which the [501 U.S. 923, 928] parties had not acquiesced at trial to the magistrate's role. 3 This particular question had divided the Courts of Appeals. See id., at 861-862, and n. 7. On the other hand, those courts had uniformly rejected challenges to a magistrate's authority to conduct the voir dire when no objection to his performance of the duty had been raised in the trial court. 4
Although we concluded that the role assumed by the Magistrate in Gomez was beyond his authority under the Act, we recognized that Congress intended magistrates to play an integral and important role in the federal judicial system. See id., at 864-869 (citing H. R. Rep. No. 96-287, p. 5 (1979)). Our recent decisions have continued to acknowledge the importance Congress placed on the magistrate's role. See, e. g., McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 142 (1991). "Given the bloated dockets that district courts have now come to expect as ordinary, the role of the magistrate in today's federal judicial system is nothing less than indispensable." Government of the Virgin Islands v. Williams, 892 F.2d 305, 308 (CA3 1989). 5 [501 U.S. 923, 929]
Cognizant of the importance of magistrates to an efficient federal court system, we were nonetheless propelled towards our holding in Gomez by several considerations. Chief among our concerns was this Court's "settled policy to avoid an interpretation of a federal statute that engenders constitutional issues." Gomez, 490 U.S., at 864 . This policy was implicated in Gomez because of the substantial question whether a defendant has a constitutional right to demand that an Article III judge preside at every critical stage of a felony trial. 6 The principle of constitutional avoidance led [501 U.S. 923, 930] us to demand clear evidence that Congress actually intended to permit magistrates to take on a role that raised a substantial constitutional question. Cf. Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 223 (O'CONNOR, J., dissenting). The requirement that Congress express its intent clearly was also appropriate because the Government was asking us in Gomez to construe a general grant of authority to authorize a procedure that deprived an individual of an important privilege, if not a right. See 2A C. Sands, Sutherland on Statutory Construction 58.04, p. 715 (rev. 4th ed. 1984). The lack of an express provision for de novo review, coupled with the absence of any mention in the statute's text or legislative history of a magistrate's conducting voir dire without the parties' consent, convinced us that Congress had not clearly authorized the delegation involved in Gomez. In view of the constitutional issues involved, and the fact that broad language was being construed to deprive a defendant of a significant right or privilege, we considered the lack of a clear authorization dispositive. See Gomez, 490 U.S., at 872 , and n. 25, 875-876.
Reinforcing this conclusion was the principle that "[a]ny additional duties performed pursuant to a general authorization in the statute reasonably should bear some relation to the specified duties" that the statute assigned to magistrates. 7 Carefully reviewing the duties that magistrates [501 U.S. 923, 931] were expressly authorized to perform, see id., at 865-871, we focused on the fact that those specified duties that were comparable to jury selection in a felony trial could be performed only with the consent of the litigants. 8 We noted that, in 1968 when magistrates were empowered to try "minor offenses," the exercise of that jurisdiction in any specific case was conditioned upon the defendant's express written consent. See id., at 866. Similarly, the 1976 amendment provided that a magistrate could be designated as a special master in any civil case but only with the consent of the parties. Id., at 867-868. And in 1979, when Congress enlarged the magistrate's criminal jurisdiction to encompass all misdemeanors, the exercise of that authority was subject to the defendant's consent. As we explained:
This case differs critically from Gomez because petitioner's counsel, rather than objecting to the Magistrate's role, affirmatively welcomed it. See supra, at 925. The considerations that led to our holding in Gomez do not lead to the conclusion that a magistrate's "additional duties" may not include supervision of jury selection when the defendant has consented.
Most notably, the defendant's consent significantly changes the constitutional analysis. As we explain in Part IV, infra, we have no trouble concluding that there is no Article III problem when a district court judge permits a magistrate to conduct voir dire in accordance with the defendant's consent. The absence of any constitutional difficulty removes one concern that motivated us in Gomez to require unambiguous evidence of Congress' intent to include jury selection among a magistrate's additional duties. Petitioner's consent also eliminates our concern that a general authorization should not lightly be read to deprive a defendant of any important privilege.
We therefore attach far less importance in this case to the fact that Congress did not focus on jury selection as a possible additional duty for magistrates. The generality of the category of "additional duties" indicates that Congress intended to give federal judges significant leeway to experiment with possible improvements in the efficiency of the judicial process that had not already been tried or even foreseen. If Congress had intended strictly to limit these additional duties to [501 U.S. 923, 933] functions considered in the committee hearings or debates, presumably it would have included in the statute a bill of particulars rather than a broad residuary clause. Construing this residuary clause absent concerns about raising a constitutional issue or depriving a defendant of an important right, we should not foreclose constructive experiments that are acceptable to all participants in the trial process and are consistent with the basic purposes of the statute.
Of course, we would still be reluctant, as we were in Gomez, to construe the additional duties clause to include responsibilities of far greater importance than the specified duties assigned to magistrates. But the litigants' consent makes the crucial difference on this score as well. As we explained in Part II, supra, the duties that a magistrate may perform over the parties' objections are generally subsidiary matters not comparable to supervision of jury selection. However, with the parties' consent, a district judge may delegate to a magistrate supervision of entire civil and misdemeanor trials. These duties are comparable in responsibility and importance to presiding over voir dire at a felony trial.
We therefore conclude that the Act's "additional duties" clause permits a magistrate to supervise jury selection in a felony trial provided the parties consent. In reaching this result, we are assisted by the reasoning of the Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, and Seventh Circuits, all of which, following our decision in Gomez, have concluded that the rationale of that opinion does not apply when the defendant has not objected to the magistrate's conduct of the voir dire. See United States v. Musacchia, 900 F.2d 493 (CA2 1990); United States v. Wey, 895 F.2d 429 (CA7 1990); Government of the Virgin Islands v. Williams, 892 F.2d 305 (CA3 1989).
We share the confidence expressed by the Third Circuit in Williams that this reading of the additional duties clause strikes the balance Congress intended between the interests [501 U.S. 923, 934] of the criminal defendant and the policies that undergird the Federal Magistrates Act. Id. at 311. The Act is designed to relieve the district courts of certain subordinate duties that often distract the courts from more important matters. 9 Our reading of the "additional duties" clause will permit the courts, with the litigants' consent, to "continue innovative experimentations" in the use of magistrates to improve the efficient administration of the courts' dockets. See H. R. Rep. No. 94-1609, p. 12 (1976). 10
At the same time, the requirement that a criminal defendant consent to the additional duty of jury selection protects a defendant's interest in requesting the presence of a judge at all critical stages of his felony trial.
There is no constitutional infirmity in the delegation of felony trial jury selection to a magistrate when the litigants consent. As we have already noted, it is arguable that a defendant in a criminal trial has a constitutional right to demand the presence of an Article III judge at voir dire. We need not resolve that question now, however, to determine that a defendant has no constitutional right to have an Article III judge preside at jury selection if the defendant has raised no objection to the judge's absence.
We have previously held that litigants may waive their personal right to have an Article III judge preside over a civil trial. See Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 848 (1986). The most basic rights of criminal defendants are similarly subject to waiver. See, e. g., United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 528 (1985) (absence of objection constitutes waiver of right to be present at all stages of criminal trial); Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 619 (1960) (failure to object to closing of courtroom is waiver of right to public trial); Segurola v. United States, 275 U.S. 106, 111 (1927) (failure to object constitutes waiver of Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure); United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1025 (CA1 1987) (failure to object results in forfeiture of claim of unlawful postarrest delay); United States v. Bascaro, 742 F.2d 1335, 1365 (CA11 1984) (absence of objection is waiver of double jeopardy defense), cert. denied sub nom. Hobson v. United States, 472 U.S. 1017 (1985); United States v. Coleman, 707 F.2d 374, 376 (CA9) (failure to object constitutes waiver of Fifth Amendment claim), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 854 (1983). See generally Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 444 (1944) ("No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right may be forfeited in [501 U.S. 923, 937] criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right"). Just as the Constitution affords no protection to a defendant who waives these fundamental rights, so it gives no assistance to a defendant who fails to demand the presence of an Article III judge at the selection of his jury.
Even assuming that a litigant may not waive structural protections provided by Article III, see Schor, 478 U.S., at 850 -851, we are convinced that no such structural protections are implicated by the procedure followed in this case. Magistrates are appointed and subject to removal by Article III judges. See 28 U.S.C. 631. The "ultimate decision" whether to invoke the magistrate's assistance is made by the district court, subject to veto by the parties. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 683 (1980). The decision whether to empanel the jury whose selection a magistrate has supervised also remains entirely with the district court. Because "the entire process takes place under the district court's total control and jurisdiction," id., at 681, there is no danger that use of the magistrate involves a "congressional attemp[t] `to transfer jurisdiction [to non-Article III tribunals] for the purpose of emasculating' constitutional courts, National Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Co., 337 U.S. 582, 644 (1949) (Vinson, C.J., dissenting) . . . ." Schor, 478 U.S., at 850 .
In Raddatz, we held that the Constitution was not violated by the reference to a Magistrate of a motion to suppress evidence in a felony trial. The principal constitutional argument advanced and rejected in Raddatz was that the omission of a requirement that the trial judge must hear the testimony of the witnesses whenever a question of credibility arises violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Petitioner has not advanced a similar argument in this case, no doubt because it would plainly be foreclosed by our holding in Raddatz. That case also disposes of the Article III argument that petitioner does raise. The reasoning [501 U.S. 923, 938] in JUSTICE BLACKMUN'S concurring opinion is controlling here:
Our disposition of the statutory and constitutional questions makes it unnecessary to discuss the third question that we asked the parties to brief and to argue. We note, however, that the Solicitor General conceded that it was error to make the reference to the Magistrate in this case and relied entirely on the argument that the error was waived. Although that concession deprived us of the benefit of an adversary presentation, it of course does not prevent us from adopting the legal analysis of those Courts of Appeals that share our interpretation of the statute as construed in Gomez. We agree with the view of the majority of Circuit Judges who have considered this issue, both before and after our decision in Gomez, that permitting a magistrate to conduct the voir dire in a felony trial when the defendant raises no objection is entirely faithful to the congressional purpose in enacting and amending the Federal Magistrates Act. 13
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
[ Footnote 2 ] "THE COURT: Mr. Breitbart, I have the consent of your client to proceed with the jury selection?
[ Footnote 3 ] As the Third Circuit has recognized:
[ Footnote 4 ] See, e. g., United States v. Ford, 824 F.2d 1430 (CA5 1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1034 (1988); United States v. DeFiore, 720 F.2d 757 (CA2 1983), cert. denied sub nom. Coppola v. United States, 466 U.S. 906 (1984); United States v. Rivera-Sola, 713 F.2d 866 (CA1 1983); Haith v. United States, 342 F.2d 158 (CA3 1965).
[ Footnote 5 ] "It can hardly be denied that the system created by the Federal Magistrates Act has exceeded the highest expectations of the legislators who [501 U.S. 923, 929] conceived it. In modern federal practice, federal magistrates account for a staggering volume of judicial work. In 1987, for example, magistrates presided over nearly half a million judicial proceedings. See S. Rep. No. 100-293, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 7, reprinted in 1988 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5564. As a recent State Report noted, `[i]n particular, magistrates [in 1987] conducted over 134,000 preliminary proceedings in felony cases; handled more than 197,000 references of civil and criminal pretrial matters; reviewed more than 6,500 social security appeals and more than 27,000 prisoner filings; and tried more than 95,000 misdemeanors and 4,900 civil cases on consent of the parties. Id. at 5565." Government of the Virgin Islands v. Williams, 892 F.2d, at 308.
[ Footnote 6 ] In Gomez, we cited our opinion in Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986), which emphasized the importance of the personal right to an Article III adjudicator:
[ Footnote 7 ] "The Federal Magistrates Act provides that a `magistrate may be assigned such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.' 28 U.S.C. 636(b) (3). Read literally and without reference to the context in which they appear, these words might encompass any assignment that is not explicitly prohibited by statute or by the Constitution. . . .
[ Footnote 8 ] The legislative history of the statute also emphasizes the crucial nature of the presence or absence of the litigants' consent. See H. R. Rep. No. 96-287, P. 20 (1979) ("Because of the consent requirement, magistrates will be used only as the bench, bar, and litigants desire, only in cases where they are felt by all participants to be competent").
[ Footnote 9 ] See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 94-1609, p. 7 (1976) (magistrate is to "assist the district judge in a variety of pretrial and preliminary matters thereby facilitating the ultimate and final exercise of the adjudicatory function at the trial of the case"); S. Rep. No. 92-1065, p. 3 (1972) (magistrates "render valuable assistance to the judges of the district courts, thereby freeing the time of those judges for the actual trial of cases"); H. R. Rep. No. 1629, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 12 (1968) (purpose of Act is "to cull from the ever-growing workload of the U.S. district courts matters that are more desirably performed by a lower tier of judicial officers").
[ Footnote 10 ] See, e. g., United States v. Peacock, 761 F.2d 1313, 1319 (CA9) (Kennedy, J.) ("There may be sound reasons . . . to allow the magistrate to assist [in voir dire], as was done in this case. [E]ach of the . . . circuits in the federal system . . . has been instructed to improve its efficiency in juror utilization. . . . The practice of delegating voir dire to a magistrate may assist the district courts in accomplishing this objective"), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 847 (1985).
[ Footnote 11 ] We noted in Gomez that the legislative history of the Act nowhere listed supervision, without a defendant's consent, of a felony trial voir dire as a potential magistrate responsibility. We did call attention, however, to a Committee Report that referred to a "letter suggest[ing] that a magistrate selected juries only with consent of the parties." Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 875 -876, n. 30 (1989) (emphasis added) (citing H. R. Rep. No. 94-1609, p. 9 (1976)).
[ Footnote 12 ] We do not qualify the portion of our opinion in Gomez that explained why jury selection is an important function, the performance of which may be difficult for a judge to review with infallible accuracy. See 490 U.S., at 873 -876. We are confident, however, that defense counsel can sensibly balance these considerations against other concerns in deciding whether to object to a magistrate's supervision of voir dire. We stress, in this regard, that defendants may waive the right to judicial performance of other important functions, including the conduct of the trial itself in misdemeanor and civil proceedings. Like jury selection, these duties require the magistrate to "observe witnesses, make credibility determinations, and weigh contradictory evidence," id., at 874, n. 27, and therefore present equivalent problems for judicial oversight.
[ Footnote 13 ] See, e. g., United States v. Alvarado, 923 F.2d 253 (CA2 1991); Government of the Virgin Islands v. Williams, 892 F.2d 305 (CA3 1989); United States v. Rivera-Sola, 713 F.2d 866 (CA1 1983); United States v. Ford, 824 F.2d, at 1439-1440 (Jolly, J., concurring). Cf. United States v. Wey, 895 F.2d 429, 431 (CA7 1990) ("it may be that the defendant's consent could authorize the judge to designate a magistrate, under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(3), to preside over jury selection"); Ford, 824 F.2d, at 1438-1439 (failure to object constitutes waiver of error); United States v. DeFiore, 720 F.2d 757 (CA2 1983), cert. denied sub nom. Coppola v. United States, 466 U.S. 906 (1984). But see United States v. Martinez-Torres, 912 F.2d 1552 (CA1 1990) (en banc); United States v. France, 886 F.2d 223 (CA9 1989).
JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom JUSTICE WHITE and JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, dissenting.
In Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858 (1989), this Court held that the Federal Magistrates Act does not authorize magistrates to conduct jury selection at a felony trial. In an [501 U.S. 923, 941] amazing display of interpretive gymnastics, the majority twists, bends, and contorts the logic of Gomez, attempting to demonstrate that the consideration critical to our holding in that case was the defendant's refusal to consent to magistrate jury selection. I find Gomez to be considerably less flexible. Our reasoning in Gomez makes clear that the absence or presence of consent is entirely irrelevant to the Federal Magistrates Act's prohibition upon magistrate jury selection in a felony trial.
The majority's reconstruction of Gomez is not only unsound, but also unwise. By discarding Gomez's categorical prohibition of magistrate felony jury selection, the majority unnecessarily raises the troubling question whether this practice is consistent with Article III of the Constitution. To compound its error, the majority resolves the constitutional question in a manner entirely inconsistent with our controlling precedents. I dissent.
The majority purports to locate the source of a magistrate's authority to conduct consented-to felony jury selection in the Act's "additional duties" clause, which states that "[a] magistrate may be assigned such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(3). Whether the additional duties clause authorizes a magistrate to conduct jury selection in a felony trial is a conventional issue of statutory interpretation. In Gomez, we held that "[t]he absence of a specific reference to jury selection in the statute, or indeed, in the legislative history, persuades us that Congress did not intend the additional duties clause to embrace this function." 490 U.S., at 875 -876 (footnote omitted). In my view, the existence of a defendant's consent has absolutely no effect on that conclusion. [501 U.S. 923, 942]
In Gomez, we rejected a literal reading of the additional duties clause that would have authorized magistrates to exercise any power not expressly prohibited by federal statute or the Constitution. See id., at 864-865. Relying on precedent and legislative history, we emphasized that the additional duties clause is to be read according to Congress' intention that magistrates "handle subsidiary matters[,] [thereby] enabl[ing] district judges to concentrate on trying cases." Id., at 872.
In my view, this structural inference is not at all affected by a defendant's consent. Under the Act, consent of the parties is a necessary condition of a magistrate's statutory authority to preside at a civil or misdemeanor trial. See 18 U.S.C. 3401(b); 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1). To hold, as the majority does, that a magistrate may likewise conduct jury selection in a felony trial so long as the defendant consents is to treat the magistrate's authority in this part of the felony trial as perfectly coextensive with his authority in civil and misdemeanor trials - the reading of the Act that Gomez categorically rejected. [501 U.S. 923, 944]
The second basis for our conclusion in Gomez that Congress intended felony jury selection to be nondelegable was Congress' failure expressly to provide for judicial review of magistrate jury selection in felony cases. The Federal Magistrates Act provides two separate standards of judicial review: "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" for magistrate resolution of nondispositive matters, see 28 U.S.C. 636(b) (1)(A), and "de novo" for magistrate resolution of dispositive matters, see 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). We deemed Congress' failure to identify any standard of judicial review for jury selection in felony trials to be persuasive evidence of Congress' intent that magistrates not perform this function. Gomez, supra, at 873-874.
Again, I fail to see how a defendant's consent to a magistrate's exercise of such authority can alter this inference. Congress said no more about the standard of review for consented-to magistrate jury selection than it did about the standard for unconsented-to magistrate jury selection. Nor does the majority identify anything in the statute to indicate the appropriate standard for consented-to magistrate jury selection.
The majority opines that "nothing in the statute precludes" judicial review, ante, at 939. However, it fails to explain how such review may be achieved. The majority's silence is regrettable. In Gomez, we recognized that jury selection is most similar to the functions identified as "dispositive matters," for which the Act prescribes a de novo review standard. 490 U.S., at 873 . We expressed "serious doubts," however, as to whether any review could be meaningfully conducted. Id., at 874. 3 We likewise concluded that [501 U.S. 923, 945] reexamination of individual jurors by the district judge would not be feasible because "as a practical matter a second interrogation might place jurors on the defensive, engendering prejudices irrelevant to the facts adduced at trial." Id., at 875, n. 29. These difficulties in providing effective review of magistrate jury selection were central to our construction of the Act in Gomez, yet they are essentially ignored today. 4
In Gomez, we found confirmation of the inferences that we drew from the statutory text in "[t]he absence of a specific reference to jury selection in . . . the legislative history." Id., at 875. See ante, at 930. The legislative history of the Act offers no more support for consented-to magistrate felony jury selection. 5
In response to the paucity of support for its construction, the majority notes that in Gomez we "call[ed] attention" to a House Committee Report that "referred" to a letter from a district judge mentioning jury selection as a duty assigned to [501 U.S. 923, 946] magistrates. Ante, at 935, n. 11. While the majority observes that the letter "`suggest[ed] that a magistrate selected juries only with consent of the parties,'" ibid., quoting Gomez, 490 U.S., at 875 , n. 30 (emphasis added by majority), it neglects to record other salient facts that we noted about this letter. In particular, the letter was the "lone reference" in the entire legislative history to such authority. Ibid. (emphasis added). Moreover, the letter suggested that magistrate jury selection took place "perhaps only in civil trials." Id., at 876, n. 30 (emphasis added). Finally, as we pointed out in Gomez,
It is clear that the considerations that motivated our holding in Gomez compel the conclusion that the Federal Magistrates Act does not permit magistrate felony jury selection even when the defendant consents. I find the majority's arguments to the contrary wholly unpersuasive.
According to the majority, "[t]his case differs critically from Gomez" because petitioner's counsel consented to the delegation of jury selection to the Magistrate. Ante, at 932. Although it asserts that this factor was essential to our analysis, the majority fails to explain how consent has any bearing on the statutory power of a magistrate to conduct felony jury selection. As I have already indicated, the reasoning behind our conclusion in Gomez that Congress did not endow magistrates with jurisdiction to preside over felony jury selection had nothing to do with the defendant's refusal to consent to such jurisdiction. [501 U.S. 923, 947]
Unable to support its revisionist construction of the Act with what we said in Gomez, the majority seeks to bolster its construction by noting that, provided the parties consent, magistrates may conduct civil and misdemeanor trials and that "[t]hese duties are comparable in responsibility and importance to presiding over voir dire at a felony trial." Ante, at 933. The majority's analogy misses the point. The fact that Congress imposed the condition of consent on magistrates' exercise of expressly-provided authority does not prove that Congress also authorized magistrates to conduct trial duties not expressly enumerated in the Federal Magistrates Act - such as supervision of felony jury selection. At most, these specifically enumerated grants of trial authority suggest that if Congress had intended to confer on magistrates authority to conduct felony jury selection, it would have predicated that authority on the parties' consent. However, as I have already discussed, see supra, at 942-943, construing the Act as authorizing magistrates to conduct consented-to jury selection in felony cases merely because the Act authorizes consented-to jurisdiction in civil and misdemeanor cases is to draw an inference from Congress' silence precisely opposite to the inference we drew in Gomez. 6 [501 U.S. 923, 948]
Finally, the majority defends its construction of the additional duties clause by stating that it will permit "`continue[d] innovative experimentations' in the use of magistrates to improve the efficient administration" of the district courts. Ante, at 934. Taken literally, such a rationale admits of no limits, and for this reason it cannot function as a legitimate basis for construing the scope of a magistrate's permissible "additional duties." As in Gomez, we must give content to the additional duties clause by looking to Congress' intention that magistrates be delegated administrative and other quasi-judicial tasks in order to free Article III judges to conduct trials, most particularly felony trials. See supra, at 942. By creating authority for magistrates to preside over a "critical stage" of the felony trial, see Gomez, supra, at 873, merely because a defendant fails to request a judge, the majority completely misapprehends both Congress' conception of the appropriate role to be played by magistrates and our analysis in Gomez.
I have outlined why I believe the only defensible construction of the Federal Magistrates Act is that jury selection in a felony trial can never be one of a magistrate's "additional duties" - regardless of whether a defendant consents. But even if I believed that mine was only one of two "reasonable" interpretations, I would still reject the majority's construction of the Act, because it needlessly raises a serious constitutional question: whether jury selection by a magistrate - [501 U.S. 923, 949] even when a defendant consents - is consistent with Article III.
It is well established that we should "avoid an interpretation of a federal statute that engenders constitutional issues if a reasonable alternative interpretation poses no constitutional question." Gomez, 490 U.S., at 864 ; accord, e. g., Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988); Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 841 (1986); Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 348 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Given the inherent complexity of Article III questions, the canon of constitutional avoidance should apply with particular force when an Article III issue is at stake. Cf. Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 90 (1982) (REHNQUIST, J., concurring in judgment) ("Particularly in an area of constitutional law such as that of `Art. III Courts,' with its frequently arcane distinctions and confusing precedents, rigorous adherence to the principle that this Court should decide no more of a constitutional question than is absolutely necessary accords with both our decided cases and with sound judicial policy").
Although this principle guided our analysis in Gomez, see 490 U.S., at 864 , it is all but forgotten today. The majority simply dismisses altogether the seriousness of the underlying constitutional question: "[w]e have no trouble concluding that there is no Article III problem when a district court judge permits a magistrate to conduct voir dire in accordance with the defendant's consent." Ante, at 932. The majority's self-confidence is unfounded. It is only by unacceptably manipulating our Article III teachings that the majority succeeds in avoiding the difficulty that attends its construction of the Act.
As the Court explained in Schor, Article III's protections have two distinct dimensions. First, Article III "safeguard[s] litigants "right to have claims decided before judges who are free from potential domination by other branches of [501 U.S. 923, 950] government.'" Schor, supra, at 848, quoting United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 218 (1980). Second, Article III "serves as `an inseparable element of the constitutional system of checks and balances'" by preserving "the role of the Judicial Branch in our tripartite system" of government. Schor, supra, at 850, quoting Northern Pipeline, supra, at 58. Although parties may waive their personal guarantee of an independent Article III adjudicator, Schor, supra, at 848, parties may not waive Article III's structural guarantee.
Indeed, this problem admits of no easy solution. This Court's decision in United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980), suggests that delegation of Article III powers to a magistrate is permissible only if the ultimate determinations on the merits of delegated matters are made by the district judge. See id., at 683 ("[A]lthough the [Federal Magistrates Act] permits the district court to give to the magistrate's proposed findings of fact and recommendations `such weight as [their] merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge warrants,' that delegation does not violate Art. III so long as the ultimate decision is made by the district court" (emphasis added; citation omitted)). 7 In Schor, we likewise emphasized the availability of de novo judicial review in upholding the performance of core Article III powers by an Article I tribunal. See 478 U.S., at 853 . But this means of satisfying the Constitution is not available here. For, as I have noted, supra, at 944, the Federal Magistrates Act does not expressly provide for judicial review of felony jury selection, and in Gomez we expressed "serious doubts" whether such review was even possible. See 490 U.S., at 874 .
The majority contends that magistrate jury selection raises no Article III structural difficulties, because "`the entire process takes place under the district court's total control and jurisdiction.'" Ante, at 937, quoting Raddatz, supra, at 681. However, as Raddatz and Schor underscore, the requirement of "the district court's total control and jurisdiction" must include the availability of meaningful judicial review of the magistrate's actual rulings at jury selection. The majority's observation that "nothing in the statute precludes a [501 U.S. 923, 952] district court from providing the review that the Constitution requires," ante, at 939, is equally unavailing. The critical question for Article III purposes is whether meaningful judicial review of magistrate felony jury selection can be accomplished. The majority does not answer this question, and Gomez strongly suggests that it cannot.
Because it ignores the teachings of Raddatz and Schor, the majority's analysis of the Article III difficulty posed by its construction of the Federal Magistrates Act raises the question whether these decisions remain good law. This consequence is particularly unfortunate, because, as I have set forth above, the most coherent reading of the Federal Magistrates Act avoids these problems entirely.
I dissent.
[ Footnote 1 ] This theme pervades the Act's legislative history. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 96-74, P. 3 (1979) (1979 amendments to Federal Magistrates Act) ("In enacting the Federal Magistrates Act in 1968, the Congress clearly intended that the magistrate should be a judicial officer whose purpose was to assist the district judge to the end that the judge could have more time to preside at the trial of cases"); H. R. Rep. No. 94-1609, P. 6 (1976) (same); S. Rep. 94-625, p. 6 (1976) (1976 amendments to Federal Magistrates Act) ("Without the assistance furnished by magistrates . . . the judges of the district courts would have to devote a substantial portion of their available time to various procedural steps rather than to the trial itself"); see also S. Rep. No. 371, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1967) (Federal Magistrates Act is intended "to cull from the ever-growing workload of the U.S. district courts matters that are more desirably performed by a lower tier of judicial officers").
[ Footnote 2 ] As we have observed, "`"[W]here the indictment is for a felony, the trial commences at least from the time when the work of empanelling the jury begins."'" Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 873 (1989), quoting Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 374 (1892), quoting Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 578 (1884). Moreover, "[j]ury selection is the primary means by which a court may enforce a defendant's right to be tried by a jury free from ethnic, racial, or political prejudice, or predisposition about the defendant's culpability." Gomez, supra, at 873 (citations omitted). We discerned Congress' recognition of this understanding from its passage of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161, and from its placement of rules relating to juries and jury selection in a chapter of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure entitled "Trial." See Gomez, supra, at 873, citing Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 23 and 24.
[ Footnote 3 ] "To detect prejudices, the examiner - often, in the federal system, the court - must elicit from prospective jurors candid answers about intimate details of their lives. The court further must scrutinize not only spoken words but also gestures and attitudes of all participants to ensure the jury's impartiality. But only words can be preserved for review; no [501 U.S. 923, 945] transcript can recapture the atmosphere of the voir dire, which may persist throughout the trial." Gomez, supra, at 874-875 (citations omitted).
[ Footnote 4 ] The majority concedes that magistrate jury selection "may be difficult for a judge to review with infallible accuracy." Ante, at 935, n. 12. But it dismisses any concerns with respect to the difficulty of effective judicial review, stating that the defendant can eliminate the need for judicial review altogether by simply declining to consent to magistrate jury selection. Ante, at 935, and n. 12. This rationalization misses the point. Insofar as the Federal Magistrates Act insists that magistrate functions be subject to judicial review, the impossibility of effective review is reason not to construe the additional duties clause as authorizing magistrates to conduct felony jury selection, regardless of whether the parties consent. See Gomez, supra, at 874-875.
[ Footnote 5 ] In Gomez, we noted that Committee Reports accompanying the 1976 and 1979 amendments to the Magistrates Act contained charts cataloging magistrate functions. In determining Congress' understanding of the permissible scope of magistrate duties, we found it relevant that not one of the charts mentioned jury selection. See Gomez, 490 U.S., at 875 , n. 30 (citing H. R. Rep. No. 96-287, pp. 4-5 (1979); S. Rep. No. 96-74, at 3; H. R. Rep. No. 94-1609, at 7; S. Rep. No. 94-625, at 5). Needless to say, the charts also contain no mention of jury selection where the parties have consented to magistrate supervision.
[ Footnote 6 ] Even if I were to accept the majority's conclusion that the scope of a magistrate's authority under the additional duties clause turns on litigant consent, I still could not accept the majority's assumption that there was effective consent in this case. Because the additional duties clause contains no language predicating delegation of an additional duty upon litigant consent, it likewise contains nothing indicating what constitutes "consent" to the delegation of an additional duty. I would think, however, that the standard governing a party's consent to delegation of a portion of a felony trial under the additional duties clause should be at least as strict as that governing delegation of a misdemeanor trial to a magistrate. Under the Act, before a magistrate can conduct a misdemeanor trial, the magistrate must explain to the defendant that he has a right to a trial before a district court judge. If the defendant elects to proceed before the magistrate, the defendant must consent in writing. See 18 U.S.C. 3401(b); see also 28 U.S.C. 636(a)(3) (incorporating requirements of 18 U.S.C. 3401 into the Federal Magistrates Act). The procedural safeguard of written consent [501 U.S. 923, 948] by the defendant "`show[s] a statutory intent to preserve trial before the district judge as the principal - rather than an elective or alternative - mode of proceeding in minor offense cases.'" Gomez, supra, at 872, n. 24, (quoting 114 Cong. Rec. 27342 (1968) (remarks of Rep. Poff)). In this case, the defendant did not consent in writing; in fact, the defendant did not proffer consent in any form. Instead, what the majority accepts as sufficient consent were merely verbal remarks made by defense counsel at a pretrial conference and jury selection. See App. 2, 5.
[ Footnote 7 ] The majority seeks to evade this difficulty by pronouncing that JUSTICE BLACKMUN'S concurring opinion in Raddatz now "control[s]" the constitutional analysis of a delegation of Article III duties to a magistrate. Ante, at 938. JUSTICE BLACKMUN'S opinion in Raddatz, however, offers little repose for the majority, for JUSTICE BLACKMUN likewise identifies the availability of judicial review as a necessary predicate of the constitutionality of any delegation of Article III duties to a magistrate. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S., at 685 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring).
JUSTICE SCALIA, dissenting.
When, at a pretrial conference, the United States District Judge assigned to this case asked petitioner's counsel (in petitioner's presence) whether he had "[a]ny objection to picking the jury before a magistrate," counsel responded, "I would love the opportunity." App. 2. Before conducting voir dire, the Magistrate herself asked counsel, "I have the consent of your client to proceed with the jury selection?" Counsel answered, "Yes, your Honor." Id., at 5. After the jury was selected under the Magistrate's supervision, but before it was sworn, the parties met with the District Judge to discuss unresolved pretrial matters. Neither petitioner nor his counsel raised any objection at that time - or at any other point during the trial - to the Magistrate's role in jury selection. Two significant events transpired thereafter. First, the jury convicted petitioner on all counts. Second, after the conviction but prior to sentencing, this Court announced Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858 (1989), holding that the Federal Magistrates Act did not authorize magistrates to conduct felony voir dire (in that case, where a defendant had objected). On appeal, petitioner sought to raise a Gomez claim, but the Court of Appeals held that his consent below [501 U.S. 923, 953] precluded him from raising this newly discovered objection to the Magistrate's role.
As a general matter, of course, a litigant must raise all issues and objections at trial. See Freytag v. Commissioner, ante, at 894-895 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). For criminal proceedings in the federal courts, this principle is embodied in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 51, which requires "a party, at the time the ruling or order of the [trial] court is made or sought, [to] mak[e] known to the court the action which that party desires the court to take or that party's objection to the action of the court and the grounds therefor."
Rule 51's command is not, however, absolute. One of the hoariest precepts in our federal judicial system is that a claim going to a court's subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any point in the litigation by any party. See Freytag, ante, at 896 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Petitioner seeks to invoke that exception here, relying on our statement in Gomez that the Magistrate lacked "jurisdiction to preside" over the voir dire in that case, 490 U.S., at 876 . But, as Judge Easterbrook has aptly observed, "`jurisdiction' . . . is a many-hued term." United States v. Wey, 895 F.2d 429, 431 (CA7), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1029 (1990). We used it in Gomez as a synonym for "authority," not in the technical sense involving subject-matter jurisdiction. The judgment here is the judgment of the District Court; the relevant question is whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction; and there is no doubt that it had. The fact that the court may have improperly delegated to the Magistrate a function it should have performed personally goes to the lawfulness of the manner in which it acted, but not to its jurisdiction to act.
This venerable exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule being inapplicable here, petitioner plainly forfeited the right to advance his current challenges to the Magistrate's role. In certain narrow contexts, however, appellate courts have discretion to overlook a trial forfeiture. The most [501 U.S. 923, 954] important of these is described in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b): In criminal cases, an appellate court may notice "errors or defects" not brought to the attention of the trial court if they are "plain" and "affec[t] substantial rights." See United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , and n. 12 (1985). Petitioner's contention that this case falls into that exception comes up against our admonition that Rule 52(b) applies only to errors that are obvious as well as significantly prejudicial. See, e. g., United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163 , and nn. 13, 14 (1982). The error alleged here was anything but obvious. At the time this case was tried, the Second Circuit had held that a magistrate was authorized to conduct felony voir dire even if the defendant objected, see United States v. Garcia, 848 F.2d 1324 (1988), rev'd sub nom. Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858 (1989). No Circuit had held that it was error for a magistrate to conduct voir dire where the defendant consented. Perhaps the best indication that there was no "plain" error, of course, is that five Justices of this Court today hold that there was no error at all. *
Even when an error is not "plain," this Court has in extraordinary circumstances exercised discretion to consider claims forfeited below. See, e. g., Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 535 -536 (1962) (opinion of Harlan, J.); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 71 -72 (1968); Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 556 -560 (1941). In my view, that course is appropriate here. Petitioner's principal claims are that the Federal Magistrates Act does not allow a district court to assign felony voir dire to a magistrate even with the defendant's consent, and that in any event the consent here was ineffective because given orally by counsel and not in writing by the defendant. By definition, these claims can be [501 U.S. 923, 955] advanced only by a litigant who will, if ordinary rules are applied, be deemed to have forfeited them: A defendant who objects will not be assigned to the magistrate at all. Thus, if we invariably dismissed claims of this nature on the ground of forfeiture, district courts would never know whether the Act authorizes them, with the defendant's consent, to refer felony voir dire to a magistrate, and, if so, what form the consent must take. Cf. 18 U.S.C. 3401(b) (defendant's consent to magistrate in misdemeanor trial must be in writing).
[ Footnote * ] Because I conclude that the alleged error was not "plain," I have no occasion to assess its prejudicial impact, assuming that that is possible. Cf. Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S., at 876 ; Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 296 (1991). [501 U.S. 923, 957]
Was this helpful?
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
American Physical Society Sites|APS|Journals|Physics Magazine
- American Physical Society Sites
- Publications
- Meetings & Events
- Programs
- Membership
- Policy & Advocacy
- Careers In Physics
- Newsroom
- About APS
- Become a Member
In January 2012, solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CME) erupted in various regions on the sun as part of the strongest solar storm in nearly a decade.
This photo shows a stunning profile view of cascading loops spiraling above the sun's surface following a solar flare eruption. The loops are made of superheated plasma. Particles spiraling along magnetic field lines illuminate the loop paths. One loop is the size of several Earths.
Video of Eruption and Loops
Image Credit: NASA/SDO/Helioviewer
This image was taken by the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). The SDO is the first mission to be launched for NASA's Living With a Star (LWS) Program, a program designed to understand the causes of solar variability and its impacts on Earth. SDO observed the solar storm in extreme ultraviolet light.
Solar Dynamics Observatory Website

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Mikhail Prokhorov promised to be a hands-on owner of the Nets, but that was before he committed to running a country of 142 million people. Prokhorov today announced he intends to run for President in next year's elections, challenging former President and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. No word on what this means for Andrei Kirilenko's future.
Prokhorov's fortune and his purchase of the Nets have been built on getting in at the right time, and with anti-Putin protests sweeping Russia, the center-right Prokhorov sees the getting is good. Or it might just be more talk from a big man with big dreams—Prokhorov aborted a parliament run earlier this year, and even floated the idea of running for PM. If, against all odds, Prokhorov wins this, one thing is certain: it'll take an act of congress to make those Dwight Howard tampering charges stick.


text:
Former Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay will join 15 celebrities from the worlds of entertainment and sports in kicking up their heels on the new season of "Dancing With the Stars.
Other hopefuls include entertainer Donny Osmond; singers Mya, Macy Gray and Aaron Carter; actors Melissa Joan Hart, Debi Mazar and Ashley Hamilton (son of George); models Joanna Krupa and Kathy Ireland; reality stars Kelly Osbourne and Mark Dacascos ("the Chairman" on Food Network's "Iron Chef America"); mixed martial artist Chuck Liddell; professional snowboarder Louie Vito; Olympic swimmer Natalie Coughlin; former Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Michael Irvin and the 62-year-old former congressman from Texas.
The contestants were announced on Monday's "Good Morning America" by "Dancing" host Tom Bergeron.
He also unveiled a new competitive twist.
"In the middle of our season, over three weeks, we're going to have double eliminations," said Bergeron. "We'll lose about half of our cast within that period. It will be a ballroom bloodbath."
Samantha Harris returns as co-host, with the panel of judges including ballroom judge Len Goodman and dancer-choreographers Bruno Tonioli and Carrie Ann Inaba.
The ninth season of the hit ABC show premieres Sept. 21.


text:
Table of Contents
Basic Nutritional Facts
There are some basic nutrition facts I believe that everyone should know. There is a lot of controversy in the health and wellness world but these are pretty basic and everyone is in agreement! Authority Nutrition gives us 10 of these so keep them in mind while on your journey to a better you!
Things To Know About Nutrition
Basic Nutritional Facts : 1. Added Sugar is a Disaster
We all know that added sugar is bad.
Some think sugar is a simple matter of "empty" calories, while othersbelieve it to cause diseases that kill millions of people each year.
It is definitely true that added sugar (sucrose and high fructose corn syrup) contains empty calories.
There are no nutrients in it and if you eat a lot of sugar then you're likely to become deficient because you aren't getting enough foods that actually have nutrients in them.
But this is just the tip of the iceberg.
There are other, much more serious dangers of sugar that are now reaching mainstream attention.
Sugar, mainly due to the high fructose content, is being implicated as a leading cause of obesity, cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes (1, 2,3).
How does fructose do this?
Then fructose makes our brains resistant to a hormone called leptin, which effectively makes our brains WANT to get fat (10, 11, 12).
This way, eating an excess of added sugars sets up a relentless biochemical drive in the brain to keep eating sugar, getting fatter and eating even more sugar.
Bottom Line: Added sugar provides empty calories and is believed to be a leading cause of diseases that kill millions of people each year.
Basic Nutritional Facts : Omega-3 Fats Are Crucial and Most People Don't Get Enough
Omega-3 fatty acids are extremely important for proper functioning of the human body.
For example, DHA, an Omega-3 fatty acid derived from animals, makes up about 40% of the polyunsaturated fats in the brain (13).
Being deficient in Omega-3 (very common) is associated with a lower IQ, depression, various mental disorders, heart disease and many other serious diseases (14).
There are three main sources of Omega-3 fats… ALA (from plants mostly), DHA and EPA (from animals).
The plant form, ALA, needs to get transformed into DHA or EPA in order to function correctly in the human body.
There is some evidence that this conversion process is ineffective in humans (15).
Therefore, it is best to get Omega-3 fats from animal sources… including fish, grass-fed meat, Omega-3 enriched or pastured eggs, or fish oil.
Bottom Line: A large part of the population is Omega-3 deficient. Avoiding a deficiency in these essential fatty acids can help prevent many diseases.
Basic Nutritional Facts : There is no Perfect Diet For Everyone
We are all unique… and subtle differences in genetics, body type, culture and environment can affect which type of diet we should eat.
Some people do best on a low-carb diet while others may do fine on a vegetarian high-carb diet.
The fact is, what works for one person may not work for the next.
To figure out what you should do, a little self experimentation may be needed.
Try a few different things until you find something that you enjoy and that you think you can stick to. Different strokes for different folks!
Bottom Line: The best diet for YOU is the one you get results with and that you can stick to in the long term.
4. Artificial Trans Fats Are Very Unhealthy and Should be Avoided
Trans fats are also known as partially hydrogenated oils.
They are made by mixing unsaturated fats with hydrogen gas at a high heat to make them resemble saturated fats.
This process is very disgusting and it amazes me to think that someone thought these fats would be suitable for human consumption.
Trans fats raise the bad cholesterol and lower the good cholesterol, cause abdominal obesity, inflammation and insulin resistance (16, 17, 18).
In the long term, consumption of trans fats raises the risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, depression and many more diseases (19, 20, 21, 22, 23).
I recommend you avoid trans fats as if your life depended on it.
Bottom Line: Trans Fats are chemically processed fats that cause all sorts of damage in the body. You should avoid them like the plague.
Basic Nutritional Facts : Eating Vegetables Will Improve Your Health
Vegetables are good for you.
They are rich in vitamins, minerals, fiber, antioxidants and an endless variety of trace nutrients that science has just begun to uncover.
In observational studies, eating vegetables is associated with improved health and a lower risk of disease (24, 25, 26).
I recommend that you eat a variety of vegetables each day.
They are healthy, fulfilling and add variety to the diet.
Bottom Line: Vegetables are rich in all sorts of nutrients. Eating vegetables each day is associated with improved health and a lower risk of disease.
Basic Nutritional Facts : It is Critical to Avoid a Vitamin D Deficiency
Vitamin D is a unique vitamin. It actually functions as a steroid hormone in the body.
The skin makes Vitamin D when it is exposed to ultraviolet rays from the sun.
This is how we got most of our daily requirement throughout evolution.
However, today a large part of the world is deficient in this critical nutrient.
In many places, the sun simply isn't available throughout most of the year.
Even where there is sun, people tend to stay inside a lot and use sunscreen when they go out, but sunscreen effectively blocks Vitamin D generation in the skin.
If you're Vitamin D deficient, then you're actually deficient in a major hormone in the body, and a deficiency is associated with many serious diseases, including diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis and others (27, 28, 29).
The best way to know is to see a doctor and have your blood levels measured.
Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to get enough Vitamin D from the diet.
If getting more sun is not an option, taking a Vitamin D3 supplement or a tablespoon of cod fish liver oil each day is the best way to prevent/reverse a deficiency.
Bottom Line: Vitamin D is a crucial hormone in the body and many people are deficient in it. Reversing a deficiency can have powerful health benefits.
Basic Nutritional Facts : Refined Carbohydrates Are Bad For You
There are a lot of differing opinions about carbs and fat.
Some think fat is the root of all evil, while others believe carbs are the key players in obesity and other chronic diseases.
But what pretty much everyone agrees on is that refined carbohydrates are at the very least worse than unrefined (complex) carbohydrates.
There are some nutrients in high-carb foods like grains that can be beneficial.
However, when you process the grains you remove most of the nutrients and then there's nothing left but the bad stuff, massive amounts of easily digestible glucose.
Eating refined carbs will cause rapid spikes in blood sugar, followed by a surge of insulin in the blood which triggers fat storage and contributes to insulin resistance and various diseases like obesity and diabetes.
I personally don't think that grains are necessary at all, the nutrients in them can be acquired from other healthier and more nutritious foods in greater amounts.
But it is very clear that whole grains and unrefined carbohydrates are at least a lot better than their refined, processed counterparts (30).
Bottom Line: Refined carbohydrates like processed grains are unhealthy. They are lacking in nutrients and lead to rapid spikes in blood sugar and insulin, which can cause all sorts of problems down the line.
Basic Nutritional Facts : Supplements Can Never Fully Replace Real Foods
"Nutritionism" is the idea that foods are nothing more than the sum of their individual nutrients.
It is a trap that many nutrition enthusiasts tend to fall into.
But it's simply not true.
Nuts, for example, aren't just shells loaded with Omega-6 fatty acids in the same way that fruits aren't just watery bags of fructose.
No, these are real foods with a massive variety of trace nutrients.
The vitamins and minerals, the ones you can also get from a cheap multivitamin, are just a small part of the total amount of nutrients in foods.
Therefore, supplements… at least the supplements we have today, are NOT able to replace the nutrients you get from real foods.
Now I will admit that supplements can be beneficial, especially for nutrients that are generally lacking in the diet like Vitamin D and Magnesium.
But no amount of supplements will ever make up for a bad diet. Not a chance.
Bottom Line: It is much more important to eat real, nutritious foods than to count on supplements to provide the nutrients you need.
Basic Nutritional Facts : "Diets" Don't Work, a Lifestyle Change is Necessary
"Diets" are ineffective. That is a fact.
They may lead to short-term results, but as soon as you start eating junk food again you will gain the weight back. And then some.
This is called yo-yo dieting and is extremely common.
Most people that lose a lot of weight on a diet end up gaining it back whenever they "stop" the diet.
For this reason, the only thing that can give you actual long-term results is to adopt a lifestyle change.
Bottom Line: Adopting a healthy lifestyle is the only way to ensure long term weight loss and a lifetime of improved health.
10. Unprocessed Food is Healthiest
Processed food is unhealthy.
As the food system has become more industrialized, the health of the population has deteriorated.
During food processing, many of the beneficial nutrients in the food are removed.
Not only do they remove healthy nutrients like fiber, but they also add other very harmful ingredients like added sugar, trans fats and refined wheat.
Additionally, processed foods are loaded with all sorts of artificial chemicals that have absolutely NOT been proven safe for long term human consumption.
Basically, processed foods have less of the good stuff and a LOT more of the bad stuff.
The most important thing you can do to ensure optimal health is to "eat real food."
If it looks like it was made in a factory, don't eat it!
My favorite fact is that diets don't work but lifestyle changes do! If you looking for a lifestyle change check out the Paleo Diet for an alternative to eating processed junk!


text:
AutoCAD Training
Learn AutoCAD, the industry-leading computer-aided design (CAD) software, with our expert-led training. Our AutoCAD Training show you how to create designs, share and collaborate on your layouts with colleagues and clients, and make blueprints to transition your projects from concept to construction. To Learn AutoCAD is the best investment for you, this Technology is valid World Wide and recognized in the World.
Welcome to AutoCAD Training
AutoCAD is an excellent Investment
AutoCAD is a software application for computer-aided design (CAD) and drafting in both 2D and 3D. It is developed and sold by Autodesk, Inc. AutoCAD was one of the first CAD programs to run on personal computers, notably the IBM PC.


text:
The DS still is home to a robust homebrew scene, as we see here in this Portal port that modder Smealum has been working on for about the past six months. "Still nowhere near playable," he writes under the latest video, but it's brought along Portal staples like turrets, cubes, switches and energy balls.
"This is still extremely early footage so please don't be too harsh," smealum writes. "Lots of debug features are present, including the ability to fly, see portals through walls and move cubes from a distance. Also, keep in mind this was shot in an emulator which provides good but still less than perfect rendering. As such, be aware that most (not all, but still) of the graphical glitches you can see in this video don't happen on hardware (mostly the portal transition is a lot nicer on an actual DS)."
YouTube video uploaded by smealum
Random Time! - How about a homebrew version of Portal for the DS? [GoNintendo]


text:
Version 3.0 Projects
From Open Babel
Revision as of 12:31, 6 January 2010 by Candicemcnair (Talk | contribs)
This page itemizes some projects for version 3.0, targeted for a release date of (???)
Everything here is intended as a proposal to be edited, revised, removed, added, etc. Please make suggestions and critiques!
Key Goals
The version 3.0 release will not be backwards-compatible with version 2.x releases. For this reason, there may be a further 2.3 release to add some features to the 2.x release series before developers migrate to 3.0.
- Faster compilation
- Easier development
- More modular library, flexible use of plugins
Many design project proposals have been pushed into separate wiki pages.
General projects
This list includes general ideas and goals for the 3.0 effort. The main push should be to refactor code to eliminate duplication and provide for a more logical class hierarchy. Some classes and methods have been deprecated and will be removed.
- Atom indexing from 0 (i.e., all data finally indexed from 0)
- This will require considerable time to stabilize the code after this change.
- Atom indexing always goes from 0 to numAtoms-1, even when you delete, add, ... atoms. The function of an atom index is to provide an index which can be used to access a data field in a std::vector for example.
- Unique Atom indexes will not go from 0 to numAtoms-1, they can be used to identify atoms for undo/redo purposes etc. Unique indexes are not reused
- Stereochemistry updates
- Valence model updates
- Retain any and all formal charges
- Valence and aromaticity models for different formats (e.g., SMILES is different from Tripos Mol2)
- Fix some problems with scripting bindings
- Consider using base libraries
- Boost
- Eigen
- Header reorganization
- Eliminate iostream from public headers (use iosfwd, etc.) to minimize compile and performance hit
- Minimize ABI / API breaking via opaque pointers
- Use minimal #include statements in public headers (and class stubs as needed)
- Revisit and refactor classes, methods (eliminate deprecated methods, migrate some methods to/from base classes)
- Continuing Software Archeology
- Generalization of OBBond class
- Support for ionic bonds, hydrogen bonds, multi-center bonds, etc.
- Generalization of queries and filters (beyond just SMARTS matching)
- Performance improvements
- SMARTS performance
- Graph symmetry
- Atom typing
- Minimize use of SSSR (smallest ring size already determined by FindRingAtomsAndBonds)
- Plugin module improvements
- Fingerprints, force fields, formats
- Descriptors, filters
- Load only as needed
- Support for chemical data types:
- QM data support
- Vibrational modes, etc.
- Orbital energies (eigenvalues, eigenvectors)
- Cube files, grids, etc.
- Point group and space group symmetry perception
- Existing PDB, CML, SDF properties and metadata
- Keywords, author, references, etc.
- QM data support
- Consistent units:
- GetTorsion returns degrees while SetTorsion takes radians
- Callbacks:
- simple callback functions
- or type-safe signals (boost::signal or libcsig++)
Specific Developer Projects
- Geoff
- Atom and other objects indexed from 0
- Header reorganization to improve compile time
- Use of opaque data pointers to minimize API and ABI breaks
- Modified ring detection to minimize FindSSSR in aromaticity detection, etc.
- All-around help
- Joerg
- Moving algorithms from JOELib to OpenBabel
- features
- Atom pairs (fast, creating fast index? algorithm for indexing?)
- Radial Basis Function, BCUT?
- Optimal Assignment kernel (slow, but very fancy)
- Clique detection
- features
- Moving algorithms from JOELib to OpenBabel
- Tim
- Force fields
- Port to eigen2
- Make memory usage for large molecules more linear (for non-bonded interactions, store only one OBFFCalculation for each unique A-B combination, ::Compute(...) will take positions as input. E_VDW and E_ELE iterate over all pairs or the neighbor list when cut-off are used.)
- Group-based cut-offs (avoid cut-off problems)
- Periodic boundary conditions (box)
- more generic way to read and specify parameter files (all AMBER ffs (GAFF), MMFF94/MMFF94s)
- Add AMBER force field
- Force fields
- Chris
- Change implementation of plugin classes so types (like fingerprints, forcefields) are themselves plugins which allows generalized commandline listing.
- Add OBDescriptor plugin type as a wrapper for logP etc. and for existing properties like MW, (and others from JOELLib?).
- Add --filter option using descriptors and --desc (?) for adding as SDF-like properties (OBPairData)
- Eventually, move OBFormat to this plugin framework.
- Make proposal for cleaning up stereochemical representation.
- New OBReaction


text:
Twice-Baked Potatoes
Why I Love This Recipe
The Kitchen Sink - Bon Appetite
Ingredients You'll Need
1 1/2 teaspoons vegetable oil
8 6-ounce russet potatoes, scrubbed
5 1/2 ounces soft fresh goat cheese (such as Montrachet), crumbled
3/4 cup half and half or milk
3 tablespoons unsalted butter
3 tablespoons chopped fresh chives
Position rack in center of oven; preheat to 375°F. Rub oil over potatoes. Pierce in several spots with fork. Place directly on oven rack; bake until very tender, about 45 minutes. Transfer to rack; cool 10 minutes. Using oven mitts, grasp 1 potato in hand. Using serrated knife, cut off top 1/4 of potato. Using spoon, scoop out potato, leaving 1/2-inch-thick shell; transfer potato flesh to large bowl. Repeat with remaining potatoes. Mash potatoes until smooth. Mix in cheese, then half and half, butter, and chives. Season with salt and pepper.
Spoon about 3/4 of potato mixture into shells, dividing evenly. Transfer remaining potato filling to pastry bag fitted with large star tip. Pipe filling atop potatoes. Place potatoes on baking sheet. (Can be made 1 day ahead. Cover loosely with plastic wrap and refrigerate.)
Position rack in center of oven and preheat to 375°F. Bake potatoes until filling is heated through and tops brown, about 20 minutes.*
* I also ran the potatoes quickly under the broiler before serving.
Questions, Comments & Reviews
'CHEF' the Film Cookbook: Recipes from El JefeBy CHEF the Film
7 Recipes11876 Downloads


text:
COLUMBUS, Ohio – Ohio University, set in an Appalachian town known for its rowdy Halloween bashes, has been named the nation's No. 1 party school, pushing the University of Georgia down a slot in the 2011 Princeton Review survey released Monday.
Ohio was No. 2 in last year's survey of students nationwide. The campus in Athens, about 65 miles southeast of Columbus, has made the party school list 12 times since 1997, but has never before reached the top.
Rounding out the top five this year were No. 3 University of Mississippi, No. 4 University of Iowa and No. 5 University of California Santa Barbara.
The Princeton Review survey is part of its 2012 edition of "The Best 376 Colleges," which includes 61 other rankings in categories such as best professors (Wellesley College in Massachusetts), most beautiful campus (Florida Southern College) best campus food (Wheaton College in Illinois) and highest financial aid satisfaction (Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania).
Brigham Young University in Utah tops the list of stone-cold sober schools for the 14th straight year.
Ohio University's party reputation has long vexed administrators at the riverside school of about 20,000 students, and policies have been beefed up over the years in an attempt to reduce student drinking.
Among efforts are strong anti-drinking messages at freshmen orientations, tougher penalties on students for alcohol violations and added surveillance during the Halloween street party, which is not sanctioned by the university.
"We take seriously our responsibility to help our students succeed in all facets of their experience, including addressing high-risk behavior," Dean of Students Ryan Lombardi said in a statement Monday. "We are disappointed in the party school ranking as it is not indicative of the overall experience of Ohio students and does not match the data we have collected."
In formal complaints regarding violations of Ohio's student code of conduct, about 60 percent are listed as alcohol-related in recent academic years, according to statistics posted online by the University Judiciaries, the school's disciplinary division. In 2010-2011, 1,213 complaints, making up 59 percent of the total, involved alcohol, the numbers show.
The Halloween revelry dates to the 1970s and typically attracts at least 20,000 people to downtown Athens streets. Arrests and citations during the party, mostly for alcohol and disorderly conduct violations, have at times reached more than 200 in recent years.
The event spun out of control in 2003, when then-Athens Police Chief Rick Mayer called the bash "the worst event to date" after rioting partiers lit couches on fire, started fights and threw bottles at officers and firefighters.
Kent Smith, vice president for student affairs at Ohio University, said the school has seen a decrease in what administrators call "high-risk behavior." That's when a student has five or more alcoholic drinks in a single setting during a two-week period.
Though, he acknowledged there are students who may be hitting the bars more than the books.
"Are some students partying too much? Absolutely," Smith said. "I'm not negating that. But I just don't believe that the Ohio University student is abnormal in comparison with the majority of other universities in the country."
Smith said the school has planned more events and activities in the evening hours and weekends to give students other options.
"High-risk behavior is not new to higher education," Smith said. And it's not one that we've solved collectively. And there's no magic wand as to how to reduce it. ... At some point, 18- to 22-year-olds have a choice to make."
Besides the party list, Ohio also lands in the top 20 in several other Princeton Review categories this year, including lots of beer and lots of hard liquor, as well as best athletic facilities, most beautiful campus and major fraternity and sorority scene.
The guide's rankings are based on email surveys voluntarily filled out by 122,000 students at more than 370 colleges across the country. On average, about 325 students from each campus respond, and university administrators often call the rankings unscientific and say they glorify dangerous behavior.
The value in the book's rankings and school profiles is that they are based on current undergraduate students submitting information about the colleges they attend, said Rob Franek, Princeton Review senior vice president/publisher of the book.
Franek said this year's survey showed "deep concerns around college costs."
"The overwhelming worry of college-bound students and their families is that a student will get into their first-choice college, but then their families won't be able to pay for it," he said. "So we see this overwhelming concern, and it really affects the way students are choosing schools."
The Princeton Review, not affiliated with Princeton University, is a Massachusetts-based company known for its test preparation courses educational services and books.
It has put out its best colleges guide since 1992.
The book also has a new top 20 list this year, which includes best health services (University of California, Los Angeles).


text:
St. Agnes
Alfred Drury, R.A., 1856-1944.
c. 1901
Plaster [?]
Source: Spielmann 111
[Click on image to enlarge it.]
Text and Image capture by George P. Landow
[You may use this image without prior permission for any scholarly or educational purpose as long as you (1) credit the Victorian Web and the Internet Archive and (2) link your document to this URL in a web document or cite it in a print one.]