SILER, Circuit Judge. General Medicine appeals a post-payment audit that began over fifteen years ago. The audit revealed many of General Medicine’s Medicare claims should not have been paid or should not have been paid at the level billed. The auditor requested records from the long-term care facilities where General Medicine provided services but did not request any records from General Medicine. General Medicine did not find out about the audit until it was finished and the overpayment was assessed. General Medicine argues that this assessment should be void or reduced because the auditor failed to give notice of the audit.

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1395ddd(f)(7)(A), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services contractors (“CMS contractors”) are required to give providers, like General Medicine, notice prior to conducting a post-payment audit. The statute does not provide a remedy if CMS contractors violate this requirement.

The Medicare Appeals Council determined that no remedy should be granted because the lack of notice was inconsequential. The Council explained that failure to provide notice did not prevent General Medicine from ably and thoroughly arguing the principal issues resulting from the audit, the validity of the sampling methodology, and the coverage of the reviewed claims over the course of several years. The Council also noted that the addition of more medical records would not have materially impacted its findings. The district court upheld the Council’s conclusion. We find that substantial evidence supports the Council’s determination that General Medicine was not prejudiced by the lack of notice. Therefore, we AFFIRM.

This divorce action concerns the trial court’s setting of the residential schedule and calculation of child support. We affirm the trial court’s judgment on both issues and also deny the competing requests for attorney fees on appeal.

The plaintiff filed this action against his employer for breach of contract by failing to provide the plaintiff with severance pay after the employer terminated the contract without cause. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, determining that it was undisputed that the plaintiff was terminated without cause, which entitled him to severance pay pursuant to the employment contract. On appeal, the defendant argues that a genuine issue of material fact exists and that the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment by failing to conduct an objective inquiry as to whether cause was present to terminate the plaintiff’s employment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case involves modification of a permanent parenting plan. The father has appealed, arguing that the trial court’s order does not contain a sufficient best interest analysis or the requisite factual findings to support its decision. We have concluded that the order contains sufficient factual findings and the required best interest analysis. The father did not provide a transcript or statement of the evidence presented before the trial court that would enable us to review the evidentiary basis for the trial court’s findings. As such, we must affirm the decision of the juvenile court. We grant Mother’s request for an award of attorney’s fees on appeal.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Steven Flowers appeals from the district court’s denial of a motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. Flowers argues that the district court erred by suggesting that he was ineligible for a reduction because his guidelines range did not change since his original sentencing, even though the First Step Act only concerns statutory sentencing ranges. The district court’s opinion is somewhat unclear on this point, but even if it did consider Flowers ineligible, that error was harmless because the court went on to deny his motion on the merits. On that point, Flowers says the court abused its discretion by failing to consider or give appropriate weight to a variety of factors when it declined to reduce his sentence. But the record reflects that the district court did consider Flowers’ arguments and did not abuse its broad discretion in rejecting them. We therefore affirm the denial of Flowers’ motion.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In an infamous September 2009 incident, the state of Ohio tried to execute death-row inmate Rommel Broom, and failed. More specifically, the state tried to execute Broom by way of lethal injection, but was forced to abandon the effort when the execution team concluded—two hours into the process—that it could not maintain a viable IV connection to Broom’s veins. The state then returned Broom to his cell, to await a second execution attempt on another day. That second execution attempt has not yet happened, however, because the parties have spent the last eleven years litigating whether the U.S. Constitution bars Ohio from ever trying to execute Broom again—Broom relies on both the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual” punishment and the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on “double jeopardy.” The state courts, including the Ohio Supreme Court, have rejected Broom’s contentions on the merits, as did the district court below on habeas review. Broom’s case now comes before us.

We in no way condone Ohio’s treatment of Broom; that it took two hours of stabbing and prodding for the state to realize that it could not maintain a viable IV connection to Broom’s veins is disturbing, to say the least. But because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) permits us to reverse state court merits decisions in only a narrow set of circumstances, and because the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision rejecting Broom’s constitutional claims on the merits does not fall within that set of circumstances here, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment denying Broom habeas relief.

In a sealed indictment, the Defendant-Appellant, Michael Wright, was charged by a Davidson County grand jury with alternative counts of first-degree premeditated murder and murder in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate a robbery of Gregory “Pee Wee” Johnson (counts one and two), and first-degree premeditated murder of Daresha Cole (count three). A petite jury convicted the Defendant as charged of felony murder in count one and first-degree premeditated murder in count three, for which he received consecutive sentences of life imprisonment. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on a violation of the Interstate Compact on Detainers (ICD); (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion to sever offenses; (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting the Defendant’s social media posts; (4) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the Defendant’s convictions; and (5) whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Tina Nichole Lewis, was charged with one count of second degree murder through the unlawful distribution of fentanyl and amphetamine and one count of delivery of fentanyl and amphetamine. The trial court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges on the basis that the indictment was duplicitous because it charged a single count of each offense by listing two Schedule II drugs, fentanyl and amphetamine. The State appeals the dismissal of the homicide charge. We conclude that the indictment, which charged one single offense of homicide, was not duplicitous, and we accordingly reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the charge.

Eric Bernard Howard, Movant, filed a pro se “Motion to Correct Judgment Pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 36.1” (the Rule 36.1 Motion). The trial court found that the Rule 36.1 Motion failed to state a colorable claim and summarily denied the Rule 36.1 Motion. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Pedro Ignacio Hernandez, appeals the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition without a hearing to determine whether due process dictates the tolling of the statute of limitations. The State concedes that the post- conviction court erred in dismissing the petition without a hearing to address the Petitioner’s tolling argument. We agree. We reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for appointment of counsel and a hearing to determine whether the Petitioner is entitled to due process tolling of the statute of limitations.