BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. Daniel Pirkel has long been seeking appellate representation to help him attack his no contest plea to a series of crimes for which he was convicted in 2008. He filed pro se appeals before the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court, but, without the benefit of appellate counsel, he lost those appeals. Next, he filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition in federal court, challenging the Michigan courts’ procedure in allowing his appellate counsel to withdraw and failing to appoint replacement counsel. The district court did not appoint counsel and denied Pirkel relief. Now, with the benefit of counsel, Pirkel’s claims are clear. At the outset, we note that the right to counsel is fundamental to our adversary system. Here, however, the Michigan trial court failed to conduct its own review of the merits of Pirkel’s appeal before allowing Pirkel’s appellate counsel to withdraw based on a conclusory statement that he could not find any issues to appeal. The Constitution requires more before a court allows counsel to withdraw. Thus, in denying Pirkel’s claims on appeal, the Michigan courts unreasonably applied clearly established federal law announced by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, Pirkel is entitled to a new first-tier appeal in the Michigan courts that complies with the guarantees of the Constitution. We REVERSE and REMAND.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Federal drug laws impose enhanced sentences if a “death results” from the use of the drugs that a defendant distributes. This “death-results” enhancement led the district court in this case to impose a life sentence on Russell Davis. Davis sold drugs that were later shared with Jacob Castro-White, who tragically died of a fentanyl overdose. Davis argues that the enhancement does not apply because he did not sell drugs directly to Castro-White. The enhancement’s text, however, does not require such a buyer-seller relationship with the victim. We also reject Davis’s other evidentiary and instructional claims.

At the same time, Davis raises a valid challenge to the warrant that allowed the police to search his home and seize his cellphone. The government now concedes that the affidavit supporting this warrant lacked probable cause. But the government asserts that the affiant gave additional unrecorded oral testimony to establish probable cause in front of the state magistrate who issued the warrant. The Fourth Amendment does not mandate recorded testimony, so we will allow the government to offer evidence of this additional testimony in an evidentiary hearing on remand. We thus deny most of Davis’s claims, but remand for limited proceedings on this Fourth Amendment issue.

The Petitioner, Christopher Lee Williams, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, seeking relief from his convictions of aggravated kidnapping, reckless endangerment, and domestic assault, and resulting effective ten-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Andy F. Nunez, Defendant, and two co-defendants, Joseph Santillan and Daniela Cruz, were indicted for first degree murder, felony murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated robbery, and reckless endangerment after a Nashville visitor was shot and killed while walking with his friend in September of 2016. Prior to trial, the State entered into a use immunity agreement with co-defendant, Ms. Cruz. Her case was severed from Defendant’s and Mr. Santillan’s case and she ultimately testified for the State. Prior to trial, counsel for Defendant subpoenaed the ten most recent use immunity agreements in first degree murder cases where a testifying co-defendant’s indictment was severed and the case proceeded to final judgment. The State filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The trial court granted the motion. The case proceeded to trial. Based partly on co-defendant Cruz’s testimony, Defendant was convicted as charged. He received an effective sentence of life plus five years. After trial, Ms. Cruz entered into a plea agreement to a reduced charge. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the motion to quash the subpoena. After a review, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, LaVar R. Jernigan, appeals the order of the Rutherford County Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief from his convictions for six counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, for which he received an effective sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment. See State v. LaVar Jernigan, No. M2016-00507-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 1019513 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 15, 2017). The Petitioner argues the State failed to disclose the existence of a “notebook” compilation containing over 6000 text messages between the victim and the Petitioner, in violation of Rule 16 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963). He additionally argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to (1) advise the Petitioner of the existence of the notebook thereby resulting in the Petitioner’s rejection of a four-year offer by the State to settle the case; (2) object to the admission of the “notebook” at trial; and (3) prepare and preserve the record in his direct appeal. Upon our review, we vacate the Petitioner’s convictions, reverse the judgment of the postconviction court, and remand this matter for a new trial.

The Petitioner, Michael Cory Halliburton, appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief, asserting that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

In 2007, a Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Mario Bateman a/k/a Mario Woods, of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced him to life in prison. This court affirmed the conviction. State v. Mario Bateman a/k/a Mario Woods, No. W2007- 00571-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 4756675, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Oct. 28, 2008), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 23, 2009). The Petitioner then unsuccessfully filed, in turn, a petition for post-conviction relief, a writ of error coram nobis, and a federal habeas corpus petition. He then filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis at issue in this case, alleging that he had newly discovered evidence in the form of an affidavit from the victim’s father asserting that the victim was “violent, aggressive, and a bully.” He contended that he may have been convicted of a lesser-included offense had the jury heard this testimony and asked that the lower court toll the statute of limitations. The lower court summarily dismissed the petition for a writ of error coram nobis, finding that the Petitioner could have discovered the evidence sooner, that the evidence was cumulative to the evidence presented at trial, and that the Petitioner had not shown that the evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial. The Petitioner filed this appeal. After review, we affirm the lower court’s judgment.

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. The right to “trial by an impartial jury” guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment contains certain substantive requirements. Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1395 (2020). One of these is the rule, established since the Middle Ages, that the trial judge cannot remove a juror based on that juror’s opinion of the merits of the case. Yet at the same time, trial judges have long-established power, consistent with the Constitution, to remove jurors for misconduct. This case concerns what happens when a trial judge removes a juror for misconduct when that juror is also a holdout against conviction.

This is a case of first impression in this circuit. Many of our sister circuits, on direct appeal, and some states have applied a prophylactic rule, holding that where there is a “reasonable possibility” that the removal decision stems from the juror’s views on the merits of the case, such removal is impermissible and is grounds for reversal of a conviction and a new trial. See, e.g., United States v. Symington, 195 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 1999). But the Supreme Court has held that the state courts are not bound by the federal appellate courts’ decisions on constitutional questions. See Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 305 (2013). Here, the MCOA was therefore free to require a showing of an actual constitutional violation. Implicitly but clearly, it did so. As a result, we reverse.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Ohio law prohibits health care practitioners and their agents from directly soliciting business from victims of a motor vehicle accident or crime, by any means other than U.S. mail, until thirty days after the date of the incident. The plaintiffs in this case are various chiropractors and a referral service that appeal the district court’s denial of their request for injunctive and declaratory relief. They claim that the statute restricts commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment. They also contend that the restrictions’ focus on health care practitioners, but not other professional industries, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. Because our precedents squarely foreclose the plaintiffs’ challenges, we affirm.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. In 1998, Oxbow Energy Solutions (“Oxbow”) entered into a long-term supply contract to provide limestone to Bay Shore Power Company (“Bay Shore”). In 2014, Oxbow breached the agreement and Bay Shore initiated arbitration proceedings to vindicate its rights under the contract. After Bay Shore prevailed, it filed the instant action to confirm the arbitration award and recover its attorneys’ fees. The district court granted summary judgment for Oxbow, finding that the contract provides that both parties are to bear their own attorneys’ fees with no possibility of recovery by the prevailing party. For the reasons that follow, we disagree with the district court’s reasoning and REVERSE its judgment.