The petitioners filed a petition to probate the will of the decedent. The will offered for probate had markings on the provisions concerning the appointment of executors to the will and the payment of the head stone. The petitioners filed an affidavit stating that they had no knowledge concerning who made the markings on the decedent’s will. The Trial Court entered an order denying the petition to probate the will, finding that the markings on the will “negated it from being accepted to Probate” and that the decedent had, therefore, died intestate. The petitioners appealed. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for the decedent’s will to be admitted to probate.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Keith Ruffin, a federal prisoner serving a lengthy prison term, suffers from many health conditions that he asserts increase his COVID-19 risks while in prison. He thus seeks “compassionate release” under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Traditionally, only the Bureau of Prisons could file compassionate-release motions, but the First Step Act of 2018 now permits defendants to file them too. This relief has always required the movant to identify “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” a phrase that the Sentencing Commission has defined in commentary accompanying its relevant policy statement. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)–(D) (2018). Ruffin makes no claim that he qualifies for relief under any of the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” identified in the Commission’s commentary. He instead argues that, after the First Step Act, district courts may find extraordinary and compelling reasons beyond those listed in this commentary. Although Ruffin raises an important legal question that has divided the courts, we need not resolve it in this case. Even when extraordinary and compelling reasons exist, the statute leaves district courts with discretion to deny relief under a balancing of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). And here, the district court denied relief to Ruffin not just because no extraordinary and compelling reasons existed, but also because the § 3553(a) factors weighed against his release. The district court did not abuse its discretion when balancing those factors, so we affirm on that alternative discretionary ground.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This case arises at the intersection of two branches of Fourth Amendment law—one governing the traditional balancing of privacy and governmental interests and the other addressing searches of the digital content of cell phones. In short, the revolution in digital capacity of cell phones has shifted the balance between individual privacy and governmental interests. This case involves the decision of Jason Fletcher’s probation officer to conduct a phone search because he was carrying two cell phones. The search revealed child pornography. Fletcher appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence found on his phone, as well as the resolution of several sentencing issues. Because the probation officer did not have reasonable suspicion to search Fletcher’s cell phone and Fletcher’s probation agreement did not authorize the search, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, VACATE Fletcher’s conviction and sentence, and REMAND this case for further proceedings.

The Petitioner, Eric Bogle, appeals from the Marshall County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for rape of a child. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in (1) failing to introduce photographs of the Petitioner and the minor victim in order to establish a “positive relationship” between them and (2) failing to present evidence that the Petitioner’s prescribed medication had an effect on his confession given to law enforcement. Following our review of the facts and relevant law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is the second appeal in this action, the facts of which date back to the 1995 death of Steven Coffey, the successful owner of a securities business. In 2015, the deceased’s widow sued the deceased’s father, who had served as executor of the estate. Following summary judgment in favor of the executor, the widow appealed and we remanded the matter to the trial court. Following a bench trial, the trial court ruled, among other things, that the three-year statute of limitations applicable to the widow’s claims were tolled by application of the fraudulent concealment doctrine. The executor appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

Week of October 19, 2020 - October 23, 2020

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Mercedes Wilson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the government argued that, under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), Wilson should be subject to a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence because of three prior state aggravated robbery convictions. Relying on this court’s opinion in United States v. Burris, 912 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc), the district court concluded that one of Wilson’s prior aggravated robbery convictions, under Ohio Revised Code (O.R.C.) § 2911.01(A)(3), was not a violent felony under the ACCA, and so Wilson was not subject to the fifteen-year minimum. The government appeals. For the reasons stated, we VACATE Wilson’s sentence and REMAND for further proceedings.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. The Free Speech Clause limits the government’s power to regulate speech on public property. The government has little leeway to restrict speech in “public forums”: properties like parks or streets that are open to speech by tradition or design. It has wider latitude to restrict speech in “nonpublic forums” that have not been opened to debate. Even there, however, speech restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral. See Minn. Voters All. v. Mansky, 138 S. Ct. 1876, 1885 (2018). In this case, we must consider how these rules apply to the restrictions that a public-transit authority imposes on parties who seek to display advertisements on its buses. The American Freedom Defense Initiative sought to run an ad that said: “Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got Questions? Get Answers! RefugefromIslam.com.” Michigan’s Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) rejected this ad under two of its speech restrictions. The first prohibits “political” ads; the second prohibits ads that would hold up a group of people to “scorn or ridicule.”

Earlier in this case, we found, first, that the advertising space on SMART’s buses is a nonpublic forum and, second, that SMART likely could show that its restrictions were reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Am. Freedom Def. Initiative v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg’l Transp., 698 F.3d 885, 890–96 (6th Cir. 2012). Since then, the Supreme Court has issued a pair of decisions that compel us to change course on our second conclusion. SMART’s ban on “political” ads is unreasonable for the same reason that a state’s ban on “political” apparel at polling places is unreasonable: SMART offers no “sensible basis for distinguishing what may come in from what must stay out.” Mansky, 138 S. Ct. at 1888. Likewise, SMART’s ban on ads that engage in “scorn or ridicule” is not viewpoint neutral for the same reason that a ban on trademarks that disparage people is not viewpoint neutral: For any group, “an applicant may [display] a positive or benign [ad] but not a derogatory one.” Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744, 1766 (2017) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); id. at 1763 (Alito, J., opinion). We thus reverse the district court’s decision rejecting the First Amendment challenge to these two restrictions.

Pro se petitioner, Antonio Romero Roberts, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Hamilton County. Upon our review, we affirm.

The Appellant, Nichole Larae Marlow, pled guilty in the Campbell County Criminal Court to possession of contraband in a penal institution, a Class D felony, and received a seven year sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, the Appellant contends that her sentence is excessive and that the trial court erred by denying her request for alternative sentencing. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.