With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (quoting O’Lone, 482 U.S. at 349, 107 S.Ct. 2400). 76 . See Holland, 758 F.3d at 222-23. 77 . Salahuddin, 467 F.3d at 274 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 90-91, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987)). 78 . Jackson-Bey v. Hanslmaier, 115 F.3d 1091, 1096-97 (2d Cir.1997) (rejecting plaintiff’s claim that he did not need to identify his sect in addition to registering as a Muslim). 79 . City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). 80 . LeClair v. Saunders, 627 F.2d 606, 609-10 (2d Cir.1980). 81 . See Giano v. Senkowski, 54 F.3d 1050, 1057 (2d Cir.1995). 82 . Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 n. 2, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972). 83 . See Graham v. Mahmood, No. 05 Civ. 10071, 2008 WL 1849167, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2008) (<HOLDING>). 84 . Ford v. Palmer, 539 Fed.Appx. 5, 6 (2d

A: holding that regulations may impinge constitutional rights if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests
B: holding that even if nation of islam members and sunni muslims were similarly situated denying the former additional access to prison facilities was reasonably related to validpenological interests
C: holding that prison regulations impinging on prisoners constitutional rights are only valid where reasonably related to legitimate penological interests
D: holding that when a prison regulation impinges on inmates constitutional rights the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests
B.