of a deterrent. While banning musical instruments, by itself, may not actually deter anyone, it is possible that BOP (and Congress) thought the ban would indicate to society that prison is a harsh place where one does not want to be.” 150 F.Supp.2d at 45. “The supposition that exclusion of electric instruments will have much of an impact on this perception may be optimistic,” the court wrote, “but it is not irrational,” especially when the ban on other amenities (including, among other things, R, X, and NC-17 rated movies, weightlifting equipment, martial arts training, in-cell coffee pots and in-cell televisions) is considered. Id. In a per curiam opinion, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling on different grounds, see Kimberlin, 318 F.3d at 233-34 (<HOLDING>), but one circuit judge on the panel would have
holding that for removal purposes the plaintiff is the party who first invokes the aid of a court holding that executives participating in an unfunded top hat plan had no ownership interest in the  funds that could be forfeited the funds remain part of the general assets of the corporation subject to the claims of its general creditors holding that an order to disgorge funds was final even though the order did not distribute the funds holding that for purposes of turners first prong the bops ban rationally furthered the governments legitimate interest in conserving correctional departmental funds holding total ban on indecent dialaporn telephone communications not narrowly drawn to serve the governments compelling interest in protecting children