{'Citation': 'Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 US 723 - Supreme Court 1963', 'Paragraph': 'The right to a trial before a fair and impartial tribunal "is a basic requirement of due process," In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1955), and must be safeguarded with vigilance. As we recognized in Irvin, however, it is an impossible standard to require that tribunal to be a laboratory, completely sterilized and freed from any external factors. The determination of impartiality, in which demeanor plays such an important part, is particularly within the province of the trial judge. And when the jurors testify that they can discount the influence of external factors and meet the standard imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment, that assurance is not lightly to be discarded. When the circumstances are unusually compelling, as in Irvin, the assurances may be discarded, but "it is not asking too much that the burden of showing essential unfairness be sustained by him who claims such injustice and seeks to have the result set aside . . . ." Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 281 (1942). Since the petitioner clearly has not met that burden', 'index': 11}
Classify the following text using the following definitions. 

- Facts: The paragraph describes the faction background that led up to the present lawsuit.
- Procedural History: The paragraph describes the course of litigation that led to the current proceeding before the court.
- Issue: The paragraph describes the legal or factual issue that must be resolved by the court.
- Rule: The paragraph describes a rule of law relevant to resolving the issue.
- Analysis: The paragraph analyzes the legal issue by applying the relevant legal principles to the facts of the present dispute.
- Conclusion: The paragraph presents a conclusion of the court.
- Decree: The paragraph constitutes a decree resolving the dispute.


Text: We need go no further. For aught that appears, the appellant was fairly tried before an able and thoughtful judge and an impartial jury, justly convicted, and lawfully sentenced. For the reasons elucidated above, the judgment of the district court is Affirmed.
Label: Facts

Text: Lassiter pled guilty to kidnapping, 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a), to assault with intent to kill while armed, D.C. Code §§ 22-401, -4502, and to using a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).	
Label: Procedural History

Text: In this venue, the appellant advances two claims of trial error and a cluster of claims of sentencing error.1 Since none possesses even a patina of plausibility, we make short shrift of them.	
Label: Issue

Text: On appeal from a dismissal in favor of a foreign sovereign on grounds of sovereign immunity, we assume the unchallenged factual allegations in the complaint to be true. Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 812 F.3d 127, 135 (D.C. Cir. 2016).	
Label: Rule

Text: But even if Khochinsky's relevant claims fit within that description, the exception excludes from its coverage “any claim arising out of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.” Id. § 1605(a)(5)(B).	
Label: Analysis

Text: We agree with the district court that none of those exceptions extends to Khochinsky's claims.	
Label: Conclusion

Text: For these reasons, we AFFIRM.	
Label: Decree

Text: {{Paragraph}}
Label:
Classify the following text using the following definitions.
Text: The right to a trial before a fair and impartial tribunal "is a basic requirement of due process," In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1955), and must be safeguarded with vigilance. As we recognized in Irvin, however, it is an impossible standard to require that tribunal to be a laboratory, completely sterilized and freed from any external factors. The determination of impartiality, in which demeanor plays such an important part, is particularly within the province of the trial judge. And when the jurors testify that they can discount the influence of external factors and meet the standard imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment, that assurance is not lightly to be discarded. When the circumstances are unusually compelling, as in Irvin, the assurances may be discarded, but "it is not asking too much that the burden of showing essential unfairness be sustained by him who claims such injustice and seeks to have the result set aside . . . ." Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 281 (1942). Since the petitioner clearly has not met that burden
Label: