paraphernalia associated with the Blotar, whereas TDCJ allows other faiths to store religious items in the chapel. The TDCJ determined that the Odinist volunteer must bring and take away the Blotar items with each visit. We do not see this claim as distinct from Mayfield’s claim to hold religious meetings without a volunteer present. The absence of the Blotar items in the chapel does not impose a distinct burden on May-field’s religious practice unless the Odinists can meet without a volunteer. Until the TDCJ's denial of group meetings is deemed unlawful, a decision that we do not make here, the TDCJ’s decision not to store the Blotar items in the prison chapel need not be evaluated separately. 10 . A panel of this court recently reached a similar holding in Baranowski, 486 F.3d at 125 (<HOLDING>). 11 . In Longoria v. Dretke, 507 F.3d 898 (5th
holding that delays of 115 days and 101 days were both substantial holding that court lost jurisdiction to impose restitution payments where it attempted to add that condition more than 60 days after the original sentence was imposed holding that the tdcjs volunteer requirement did not impose a substantial lourden on jewish inmates who wanted to meet on more sabbath and jewish holy days than their volunteer could attend holding that the court erred in failing to inform the defendant that it could impose restitution but that the error did not affect the defendants substantial rights because the court informed the defendant that it could impose a maximum fine of an amount higher than the restitution amount imposed holding that operation of a facility to enable observant individuals to visit the sick on the sabbath and holidays as well as the other individual plaintiffs sic obligations to observe the sabbath while being able to visit their family members at a nearby hospital implicates their religious exercise