has offered to serve as a resource to resolve any questions regarding the extent of an individual’s compliance. The Court finds that under the circumstances of this case, the risk of arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement is not so great that this Court should second-guess the wisdom of the elected County Commission (who will also have ultimate authority to oversee its enforcement), and invalidate the Ordinance on its face. See, e.g., Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 503, 102 S.Ct. 1186 (finding that even though an ordinance gave police officers considerable discretion “to give meaning to the ordinance and to enforce it fairly,” the speculative danger of arbitrary enforcement was not sufficient to render the ordinance facially void for vagueness); High Ol’ Times, 673 F.2d at 1231 (<HOLDING>). In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have
holding prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knew that prisoner faced a substantial risk of harm and disregarded that risk holding the better rule  on the question of the divisibility of a contract of insurance for a gross premium on several items of property separately valued  is that it depends upon the nature and entirety of the risk thus where the property is so situated that the risk of one item affects the risk on the other the contract is entire and not divisible holding that an alien must be released unless the government demonstrates at a bond hearing that the alien poses a risk of flight or a risk of danger to the community holding that where failure at rehabilitation will create an extreme risk to public safety the heavier weight given by the statute to the first and third factors evidences our legislatures recognition that the risk is too great to justify an attempt to modify this offenders behavior in the juvenile system holding that regardless of the risk of discriminatory enforcement a court may not hold that this risk invalidates the statute in a preenforcement facial attack