The Defendant, John P. Stone, was convicted of aggravated burglary following a bench trial, and he received a sentence of twelve years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of aggravated burglary. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Daniel Smith, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his ten-year probation sentence for aggravated assault. The trial court determined that the Defendant’s act of sending a letter to the victim violated the terms of his probation sentence and ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence. The Defendant asserts that the trial court’s revocation of his probation sentence was an abuse of discretion and that he should be returned to service of a probation sentence. After review, we conclude that revocation of the probation sentence was not an abuse of discretion.

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. Following two days of evidence, two days of deliberations, and two composed juries, defendant appellant Anthony Ozomaro was convicted of possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii). On appeal, Ozomaro seeks a new trial based on assertions of improper removal and replacement of a deliberating juror or, in the alternative, a new sentencing hearing due to an allegedly improper sentencing enhancement. For the following reasons, we affirm.

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Hackers compromised customer-payment information at several Wendy’s franchisee restaurants. That difficulty for Wendy’s and its franchisees soon became a difficulty for the company’s directors and officers, when a number of shareholders took legal action against Wendy’s directors and officers on the corporation’s behalf to remedy any wrongdoing that might have allowed the breach to occur. Three shareholder derivative legal efforts ensued—two actions and one pre-suit demand—leading to a series of mediation sessions between the interested parties. Two of the efforts resulted in a settlement, which the district court approved after appointing one of the settling shareholder’s attorneys as the lead counsel. Those decisions drew unsuccessful objections from Thomas Caracci, a shareholder who had been pursuing one of the derivative actions, but had not participated in the latest settlement discussions. Caracci now appeals a host of decisions made by the district court, which together had the effect of dramatically reducing Caracci’s entitlement to an attorney’s fees award. Because the court acted within the bounds of its wide discretion to manage shareholder litigation, we affirm.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. For almost a decade, executives at FCA US, LLC and its parent company, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.,1 engaged in a pattern of racketeering, involving bribery and corrupt labor relations with the United Auto Workers (UAW). General Motors (GM) believes that it was the intended victim of the scheme and says it has suffered billions of dollars in damages because of it. GM accordingly sued FCA, Fiat, and various executives under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, concluding that GM had failed to establish that the alleged RICO violations proximately caused its injuries. For the reasons stated, we AFFIRM.

The Defendant, Phillip Myron Looper, pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated animal cruelty and one count of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to 364 days to be served in the county jail, followed by twelve years of probation, including a restriction from leaving the county of residence except for medical treatment. The Defendant did not object to the sentence but filed a timely appeal, contending that the trial court erred when it imposed a sentence in excess of the agreed upon five years and by improperly imposing travel restrictions. After review, we reverse the trial court’s judgments and remand the case for entry of an order as set forth herein.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Seth Michael Zakora died from an overdose of fentanyl in his prison cell at the Lakeland Correctional Facility (Lakeland) in Michigan. His mother, Brandy Zakora, as the personal representative of his estate, brought this lawsuit against a number of employees and officials with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) and the Michigan State Police (MSP), asserting multiple claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The claims in essence allege that the defendants are responsible for Zakora’s death because (1) they failed to protect him from the allegedly rampant problem of drug smuggling at Lakeland, and (2) they failed to promptly investigate two other incidents of drug overdoses in Zakora’s small unit that occurred within two days of his own death. Zakora’s estate (the Estate) also alleges that two corrections officers were deliberately indifferent to Zakora’s serious medical needs by not heeding verbal warnings from other inmates about Zakora’s dire health status immediately before he died.

The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. In this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendants Officer Jeremy Powers and the City of Adrian appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, state law immunity, and municipal liability grounds. We hold that neither qualified nor state law immunity shields Officer Powers from liability. Consequently, we lack appellate jurisdiction to review the municipal liability claim against Defendant City of Adrian. The district court’s denial of summary judgment to Defendant Powers is AFFIRMED, and Defendant City of Adrian’s municipal liability appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

COLE, Circuit Judge. Cynthia Hurst sued Caliber Home Loans for procedural violations related to her loan-modification application. After both parties filed motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Caliber. Hurst appeals the district court’s ruling as to her dual-tracking claim, her reasonable diligence claim, and her adequate notice claim. We conclude that the district court erred with respect to the reasonable diligence claim only, so we affirm in part and vacate in part the district court’s decision.

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Defendant Timmy Fields appeals his twenty-five-year mandatory-minimum sentence enhancement imposed for his having committed two prior “serious drug felon[ies].” Fields challenges the procedure used to impose his enhancement and argues as well that neither prior conviction was for a “serious drug felony.” Most of Field’s challenges lack merit, but we agree that one of the predicate prior convictions was not for a “serious drug felony.” Accordingly, we VACATE Fields’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing.