A. WHETHER PRISON OFFICIALS CAN REQUIRE PRISONERS TO SHOW CENTRALITY IN W-DOC'S RRIS APPLICATION PROCESS FOR REQUESTING RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATIONS, AND WHETHER PRISON OFFICIALS CAN REGULATE PRISONERS SINCERITY AND RELIGIOSITY UNDER THEIR SOLE DETERMINATION AND DISCRETION, pp. 7-12

B. WHETHER PRISON OFFICIALS HAVE THE BURDEN TO CHALLENGE SINCERITY AND RELIGIOSITY, AND WHETHER THERE WAS A THRESHOLD FACT QUESTION AS TO MR.ENTLER'S SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS FOR THE STATE COURTS TO RESOLVE, pp. 12-18;

C. WHETHER PROHIBITING RELIGIOUS EXERCISE UNLESS A PRISONER PROVIDES A RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY, OR PROHIBITING INDIVIDUAL RELIGIOUS EXERCISES, IMPOSE A SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN, pp, 18-21;

D. WHETHER PRISON OFFCIIALS CAN RELY ON ALTERNATIVE SECOND BEST OPTIONS OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISE AS A BASES OF CLAIMING THEY ARE NOT IMPOSING A SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN ON PRISONERS RELIGIOUS EXERCISE, pp. 21-26; and

E. WHETHER PRISON OFFICIALS CAN RELY ON POST HOC RATIONALIZATIONS THAT DO NOT MEET RLUIPA'S STRICT SCRUTINY STANDARD TO MEET THEIR BURDENS UNDER RLUIPA. pp. 26-37.

Whether prison officials can require prisoners to show centrality in religious exercise, and whether prison officials can regulate prisoners' sincerity and religiosity