by prison officials is by definition 'retaliatory' in the sense that it responds directly to prisoner misconduct.' ”) (quoting Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 74 (4th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1022, 115 S.Ct. 1371, 131 L.Ed.2d 227 (1995)). 9 .See In re Long Term Admin. Segregation of Inmates Designated as Five Percenters, 174 F.3d 464, 466-69 (4th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 874, 120 S.Ct. 179, 145 L.Ed.2d 151 (1999) (hereinafter In re ... Five Percenters); see, e.g., Fraise v. Terhune, 283 F.3d 506, 519 (3d Cir.2002) (upholding a ban on Five Per-center newspaper where inmates could possess, study, and discuss the Bible and the Koran); Brown v. D. anting summary judgment to defendants ■ on Five Percenter plaintiff's RLUIPA claim); Cartwright, 2008 WL 2944668, at *2 n.2 (<HOLDING>); Talbert, 2007 WL 3339314, at *5 (rejecting a
holding that the district courts finding that an allegedly coercive threat did not specifically motivate the defendants confession where 1 there was no evidence that the threat was repeated at the police station 2 defendant offered no admissible evidence that the threat was the crucial factor motivating his confession and 3 he confessed immediately after the officer threatened to administer a gun residue test as opposed to confessing immediately after the allegedly coercive threat was made thus the gunresidue test was just as plausible a motivating factor for the confession as was the threat recognizing that there is dicta and then there is dicta and then there is supreme court dicta holding in dicta that classification of five percenters as a security threat group and resulting confiscation of their materials did not state a claim under rluipa where there was no showing that plaintiff was substantially burdened in the exercise of his religion holding that absent some showing that prosecutorial discretion was abused in the selection of cases in which the death penalty was sought there is no basis for either a claim under the eighth amendment or a claim under the equal protection clause holding that citizen did not have standing where there was no showing of a procedural irregularity