Notes of Decisions
Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 1997 (2012).
· cites it 2× “interpreters and translators who are not citizens of the United States”); 28 U. S. C. § 530C(b)(1)(1) (providing that Department of Justice funds may be used for “[pjayment of interpreters and translators who are not citizens of the United States”).”
Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012 (10th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “The Ensign Amendment, which is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(6), now provides that “no [BOP] funds may be used to distribute or make available to a prisoner any commercially published information or material that is sexually explicit or features nudity.”
Ballard v. Holinka, 601 F. Supp. 2d 110 (D.D.C. 2009).
· cites it 3× “has been reenacted in each subsequent appropriations act and is now codified at 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(6)[.]” Ramirez v. Pugh, 486 F.”
Love Brooks v. Bryan Bledsoe, 682 F. App'x 164 (3rd Cir. 2017).
“” 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(6). The written materials were properly banned under 28 C.”
City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 222 F.R.D. 51 (E.D.N.Y 2004).
· cites it 2× “3 (2004), codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 530C, from disclosing the data at issue, and that such data is protected by the law enforcement privilege.”
Baker v. Muskasey, 287 F. App'x 422 (6th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “§§ 1915 (e)(2) and 1915A and dismissed it without prejudice for Baker’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.”
Ramirez v. Pugh, 486 F. Supp. 2d 421 (M.D. Penn. 2007).
“The amendment, which has been reenacted in each subsequent appropriations act and is now codified at 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(6), prohibits the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) from using federal funds to “distribute or make available any commercially published information or material to a…”
Prison Legal News v. Stolle, 319 F. Supp. 3d 830 (E.D. Va. 2015).
“" 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(6). "In response to the Ensign Amendment, the BOP promulgated an implementing regulation that narrows the scope of the statute by defining key statutory terms," and interprets the Ensign Amendment as applying only to pictorial representations.”
Johnson v. Arms, 222 F.R.D. 48 (E.D.N.Y 2004).
“3 (2004), codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 530C (“2004 Act”), prevented it from disclosing this data.”
City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 228 F.R.D. 134 (E.D.N.Y 2005).
“3 (2004), codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 530C. The 2004 Act provided: [N]o funds appropriated under this or any other Act may be used to disclose to the public the contents or any portion thereof of any information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to section 923(g)…”
Bismullah Ex Rel. Bismullah v. Gates, 551 F.3d 1068 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “§ 530D(e) ("executive agencies and military departments"); 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(L)(iv) ("executive agency or military department"); 28 U.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(1)(1) — 1 case
Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 1997 (2012).
“interpreters and translators who are not citizens of the United States”); 28 U. S. C. § 530C(b)(1)(1) (providing that Department of Justice funds may be used for “[pjayment of interpreters and translators who are not citizens of the United States”).”
— 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(1)(I) — 1 case
Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 1997 (2012).
“interpreters and translators who are not citizens of the United States”); 28 U. S. C. § 530C(b)(1)(1) (providing that Department of Justice funds may be used for “[pjayment of interpreters and translators who are not citizens of the United States”).”
— 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(1)(M)(i) — 2 cases
— 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(3) — 1 case
— 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(6) — 14 cases
Ballard v. Holinka, 601 F. Supp. 2d 110 (D.D.C. 2009).
“has been reenacted in each subsequent appropriations act and is now codified at 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(6)[.]” Ramirez v. Pugh, 486 F.”
Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012 (10th Cir. 2011).
“The Ensign Amendment, which is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(6), now provides that “no [BOP] funds may be used to distribute or make available to a prisoner any commercially published information or material that is sexually explicit or features nudity.”
Love Brooks v. Bryan Bledsoe, 682 F. App'x 164 (3rd Cir. 2017).
“” 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(6). The written materials were properly banned under 28 C.”
Baker v. Muskasey, 287 F. App'x 422 (6th Cir. 2008).
“§§ 1915 (e)(2) and 1915A and dismissed it without prejudice for Baker’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(6)(D) — 1 case
Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012 (10th Cir. 2011).
“The Ensign Amendment, which is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(6), now provides that “no [BOP] funds may be used to distribute or make available to a prisoner any commercially published information or material that is sexually explicit or features nudity.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(L)(iv) — 2 cases
Bismullah Ex Rel. Bismullah v. Gates, 551 F.3d 1068 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
“§ 530D(e) ("executive agencies and military departments"); 28 U.S.C. § 530C(b)(L)(iv) ("executive agency or military department"); 28 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.