progeny and those cases stand for the proposition that putting pressure on an individual and forcing him to choose between and banning his religion or getting benefits for undergoing punishment is a substantial policy is the least restrictive means of needs of furthering their compelling interest and the police have not met this burden they have not offered any evidence that would support that the growing policy at least restrictive means and they have not offered any evidence in requiring sure we don't agree that they have a compelling interest in requiring short hair the compelling interest is not having short hair but it's these these other interests their status for example shore here there's not a compelling there's a compelling need to secure the safety and security of the officers however having short hair is not necessarily  only means of that of achieving that that goal of preserving the safety and security of the officers this is also evidence by the fact that these regulations allow for female prisoners to have hair  are however in the state they don't require the fields to to cut their hair according to in accordance with the grooming policy they are allowed to have long hair eventually right it does say a life of any length and then has as pointed out that it is unclear if if they continue to say of shoulder length but we have also presented the alternatives used in other states such as the state of colorado that regulation justification for their policy that they haven't met the other part of correct your honest correct crash because they have not offered any evidence that would show that the growing policy is the least restrictive means and they reversed the alternatives that we've offered again colorado for example new mexico also allows an exception for sincerely held religious beliefs that regulation crime our client is currently released from prison from under order of this court which the court issued on may twenty sixth the still have the court's reasoning in prize are hinged on the fact that the language especially nine hundred eighty three is very general and that the federal habeas statutes are very specific and those addition had congress intended for hey b s exhaustion to requirements to limit relief under relief but they wouldn't they would have indicated that within the statute but they did not include such language so other alternatives that they could use instead of allowing an exception you  well they are they already they already conduct daily visual inspections of the prisoners and that would go to meet some of their concerns with regards to allowing mr war soldiers to keep air and healing in terms of other alternatives such as and during those inspections they could present their concern that there might be something hidden in the hair they could have the prisoner run his fingers through his hair just to show that there is nothing as part of the daily inspections that's something that they could do and they haven't shown that that that doing that would somehow pose any extra burden on them for what different from what they already do on a daily basis and and it's that lack of evidence that goes to point to the fact that they have not met their burden and therefore we cannot find that the grooming policy is the least restrictive means and  this is much different from the traditional trust under trinity safely which is a rational basis there's a lot you know i've looked through all the documents that were what is there at least from your perspective if anything that points to the fact that this very considered alternative to this policy i don't think that there is anything in the record your honor that states that they considered any alternatives they just say that this is the only alternative that you can't just rely on these sort of blanket statements that's not enough under a look at just to say well we have these interests and this is a way of meeting this that interest and there is no other way that's not evidence showing that this is the least restrictive means security prison no history of attempted escapes no history of violence in prison and there's no reason why they shouldn't allow an exception for mr war soldier to keep his hair long their stand your ground now they have long hair it has to be above the shoulder that's that seems to be what do you assess seems to be what it says and my argument later will be that that is rationally related to  have grooming standards to deal with the end of the female inmates security concerns or their concerns as to female inmates that correspond with those concerns in other words there are standards they're just not the same as many of the cases suggest that having a different standard is all right now i the court is here today to review the denial  that was subject to a mix of discipline and was not a lot of family visits in there's some confusion in the record about what that means my understanding is that means that he's not allowed contact visits with family members something along those lines later well it depends on what your honor means by later  yeah i can agree with you on that it's really not clear whether the forty seven days or so of last present involves credit he was not able to earn because he went on c status as soon as the defendant learned of the loss of credit for the failure to earn credits whatever it happens to be the defendants put in in iraq that inform from may twenty first that was the working knowledge of his release date to july seventh by my count that's forty seven days and he requiring the defendants to give the credit it will shorten mr war soldier sentence is about forty two days but you just said you don't know why the time credits were taken away and from from the heck point of view it's not important his sentence will be forty two days shorter if desired because he will be either granted or restored work time credits that were taken away because he failed to and i've just been talking about between a case where the factor duration of the sentence is in play and some other kind of case that case pointed out that mr muhammad the inmate mr were sold was making any challenge to the amount of time he either didn't earn for lost he's simply saying that he should have earned it or kept it i'd like to return to the issue of the evidence that was before judge lou that had to do with the grooming standards and the sea status rules being think least restrictive alternative to need to planet where as i said courts of appeal they only look at a judge's ruling and say it's implied in this ruling that he ruled on certain issues and that's what happened here a judge who had i front of him a whole lot of evidence on the issue of least restrictive alternative and i don't think this court our go forward and just assume that he didn't act on it and if i mean i summarized what some of the evidence was  you should think about alternatives in the context first of all mr war soldiers simply say that the alternative is no one forced me as the him that was what c d c was doing before the grooming standards in essence judge high as it was was confronted with the alternative that mr wertz holder is suggesting in this case and they decided other hubbard say it's impossible or at least highly unlikely it's impossible or nearly impossible to enforce a rule that  requires the prison system to evaluate each prisoner with regard to his or her hair and his or her question want to my question of making a distinction between color convey and a minimum security institution your honor the rivaling declaration describes what goes on in this particular institution community correctional facility prisoners go outside of the walls to work prisoners have more freedom within around freedom to move outside of the walls i submit to you that the grooming standards and for example accurate photos that aren't obscured by a long here or a beard are more important  put in solitary confinement and that in page thirty of the record that was when his first rule violation second is that mr morse leader was placed on c status because of his refusal to cut his hair that's clear from m in addition we just like to point out that judge pi's was right in recognizing that the state does have same interest security interest in women the c d c has not shown that allowing women to keep their hair long cleanup is in any way better meet their their interests and that they they can't hide weapons in their hair because it's up for anything so that to that extent lastly we just like to point out that we're not  challenging the good time credits or the other aspects of the piece that is like the loss of phone call like the loss of attending the classes and and lastly we just like to say that know i don't remember his name but i promise but that deceased artist is not really related to the state's compelling interest and that they haven't shown that lost a phone call privileges or not