James Hanna, an Ohio death-row prisoner represented by counsel, has filed two motions. He requests leave to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). He also moves the Court to remand his pending petition to the district court, arguing that his second-in-time petition is not successive such that his claims must meet the requirements of § 2244(b). We deny both motions.

A husband never answered his wife’s complaint for divorce, and the trial court entered a default against him. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the wife a divorce, divided the marital estate, and awarded the wife alimony. On appeal, the husband faults the court for denying his motion to set aside the final decree, for its valuation and division of the marital estate, and for its alimony award. We affirm.

The trial court terminated a father’s parental rights to his daughter based upon two statutory grounds: persistence of conditions and failure to manifest a willingness and ability to assume custody of the child. We reverse the trial court’s decision as to the first ground, but affirm as to the second. We also affirm the trial court’s finding that termination of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests.

Two homeowners filed suit against a metropolitan government challenging a metropolitan code provision that prevented them from serving customers at their home-based businesses. The trial court granted summary judgment to the metropolitan government. After the homeowners filed this appeal, the metropolitan council repealed the challenged code provision and enacted a new provision allowing certain home-based businesses to serve up to six clients a day. We have determined that, in light of the metropolitan government’s enactment of the new ordinance, this appeal is moot.

This is an appeal from post-divorce litigation between parents. The only issues raised on appeal relate to the awards of attorney’s fees and guardian ad litem fees. Due to inconsistencies and a lack of findings in the final order, we vacate and remand for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law.

This case involves a claim for personal injuries that were sustained by a customer of a fast food restaurant. The restaurant’s manager burned the customer with hot grease following an altercation between the manager and the customer’s boyfriend. Thereafter, the customer brought a vicarious liability claim against the owner and operator of the restaurant based on the manager’s actions. After initial discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the manager acted outside of the scope of her employment by throwing the hot grease at the plaintiff. The trial court agreed and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appealed. We affirm the trial court’s decision and remand.

The employee asserted she suffered a left eye injury when foreign material entered her eye while she was working in the course and scope of her employment. The employer initiated benefits and paid certain medical expenses. More than one year after the last voluntary payment of benefits, the employee filed a petition seeking additional benefits. The employer asserted that the employee’s ongoing complaints were unrelated to the work accident and that her petition for benefits was untimely. After the employer filed a motion for summary judgment addressing the timeliness issue, the employee argued, in part, that the discovery rule extended the time for the filing of a petition for benefits. The trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the employee’s case, and the employee has appealed. After careful consideration of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify it as final.

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Ohio law mandates that the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC) be composed of three members from each of the top two political parties in the state, and an additional seventh member who cannot have any political affiliation. See Ohio Rev. Code § 3517.152(A)(1). The Libertarian Party of Ohio (LPO) and its former chairman, Harold Thomas, contend this law violates their First Amendment right to associate for political purposes. The district court disagreed, and we affirm.

SILER, Circuit Judge. Defendants Josh Small and Joni Johnson were both convicted and sentenced under the Federal Kidnapping Statute. In this consolidated appeal, Small and Johnson raise several issues, including insufficiency of the evidence under the Federal Kidnapping Statute, improper advice to the jury, failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on a pro se motion by Small, and unreasonable sentences.

This case presents an atypical application of the Federal Kidnapping Statute. Thus, the most significant issue is whether the conduct by the defendants violated the kidnapping statute. Because they did not transport the victim across state lines, the defendants claim that under the statute, there must be more interstate activity other than traveling into another state. We AFFIRM.

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Through several corporations, members of the Boersen family have planted corn and soybeans in Western Michigan for several generations. When 2016 delivered a poor crop year, the corporate entities that made up the Boersen operation could not cover their debts. One creditor, Helena Agri-Enterprises, obtained a nearly fifteen-million-dollar judgment against the Boersen entities and the family members who ran them. When they could not pay that debt, Helena sued other Boersen family members and their newly formed companies, claiming that these new corporate forms should not be respected and were fraudulently designed to sidestep the debt. Because Helena has failed to offer a legitimate explanation for slighting the corporate form, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants.