free exercise claim); Flagner v. Wilkinson, 241 F.3d 475, 481-87 (6th Cir.2001) (applying Turner to a prison grooming regulation and declining to apply Smith); Green v. Polunsky, 229 F.3d 486, 489-91 (5th Cir.2000) (applying Turner and O’Lone to prisoner’s free exercise claim); DeHart v. Horn, 227 F.3d 47, 51-60 (3d Cir.2000) (en banc) (applying Turner factors to prisoner’s religious right to have special diet in prison); Hakim v. Hicks, 223 F.3d 1244, 1247-49 & n. 3 (11th Cir. 2000) (applying Turner and O’Lone and’ noting that because the government had not argued that Smith required a different standard, the court would not decide the issue); Walsh, 1 F.3d at 876-77 (declining to depart from Turner and distinguishing Smith)] Salaam v. Lockhart, 905 F.2d 1168, 1171 n. 7 (8th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); see also Sasnett v. Litscher, 197 F.3d 290,
holding that a defective acknowledgment does not affect the validity of a mortgage as to the parties holding resentencing does not affect the date on which the judgment  of conviction became final holding that smith does not affect the tumerolone analysis holding that allegation of procedural injury does not affect the issues of injury in fact or causation holding that procedural violations merely affect the weight of the evidence