Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): PA, 265 Fed.Appx. 107, 110 (3d Cir.2008) (same; granting summary judgment to defendants under First Amendment); Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571 (6th Cir.2005) (confiscation of inmate’s Five Percenter-related mail did not violate his constitutional rights); Cartwright v. Meade, 2008 WL 2944668 (W.D.Va. July 31, 2008) (confiscation of Five Percenter materials from inmate's cell did not violate the First Amendment); Johnson v. Stewart, 2008 WL 828086 (W.D.Mich. March 26, 2008) (confiscation of Five Percenter literature did not violate First Amendment); Talbert v. Jabe, 2007 WL 3339314 (W.D.Va. Nov. 8, 2007) (confiscation of Five Percenter mail did not violate First Amendment); Cooper v. Starling, 2003 WL 23350443, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 8, 2003), aff'd, 71 Fed.Appx. 248 (4th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). 10 . See, e.g., Brown, 265 Fed.Appx. at 110 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that statute which prohibited polygamy did not violate first amendment (B) holding that a law did not violate the first amendment because it did not burden the exchange of ideas and noting most laws restricting a states initiative process would not implicate the first amendment (C) holding that confiscation of inmates five percenter religious medallion as contraband did not violate the first amendment (D) holding that imposition of government fees did not violate exempt status of religious organization (E) holding that imposition of social security taxes on persons who object to the receipt or payment of public insurance benefits on religious grounds does not violate the first amendment
Output (English): holding that a law did not violate the first amendment because it did not burden the exchange of ideas and noting most laws restricting a states initiative process would not implicate the first amendment