Petitioner, Anthony James Zonneville, appeals the denial of his petition for post- conviction relief. Following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of possession with intent to sell or deliver .5 grams or more of cocaine in a drug free zone and simple possession of alprazolam. Petitioner contends on appeal that the trial court erred in denying the petition for post-conviction relief because he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Following a review of the briefs and the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, George Oviasojie, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of counsel prior to and during his guilty plea hearing. Upon our review of the record, arguments of the parties, and pertinent authorities, we affirm the denial of the petition.

Defendant, Carl S. Dixon, was indicted by the Washington County Grand Jury for aggravated assault. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of reckless aggravated assault. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to serve two years, to be suspended on probation, and ordered Defendant to pay the victim $600 in restitution at the rate of $25 per month. Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court’s order of restitution was proper when Defendant’s only source of income was Social Security Supplemental Security Income. Having reviewed the record and the applicable authority, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

PER CURIAM. A Tennessee jury convicted Jeremiah A. Leavy of premeditated, first- degree murder (and a slew of other crimes) in 1998. After exhausting his remedies in the state courts, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the district court denied in June 2006. More than a decade later, Leavy moved for relief from that judgment under Civil Rule 60(b). In August 2018, the district court denied that request too. Leavy now appeals the district court’s decision. We dismiss his appeal as untimely.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Jeffrey Emard appeals the denial of his application for Social Security disability-insurance benefits. After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that Emard did not qualify as “disabled” under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423 et seq. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision on appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

A Davidson County jury convicted Quintavious Montez Patton of first degree felony murder, voluntary manslaughter, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery. The jury convicted Donte Ricardo Swanier of first degree felony murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced both Defendants to effective sentences of life in prison. On appeal, Defendant Patton: (1) challenges the trial court’s admission of video evidence; (2) claims his right to a speedy trial was violated; and (3) seeks relief based upon the cumulative effect of the trial court’s errors. Defendant Swanier appeals the trial court’s admission of: (1) rap music; (2) Facebook posts; and (3) prior bad acts. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Petitioner, Jeffrey McCoy, pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at $10,000 or more and one count of burglary of a building other than a habitation. The trial court imposed a twelve-year effective sentence to be served consecutively to a previous sentence in South Carolina. The Petitioner appeals the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner maintains that the post-conviction court erred in finding that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. The State concedes error. After a review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for appointment of counsel and further proceedings consistent with the Post-Conviction Procedure Act.

In this estate proceeding, the original petitioner, an adult child of the decedent, filed a petition for letters of administration, averring that the decedent had died intestate. The trial court initially granted the petition, designating the petitioner as the personal representative of the decedent’s estate. The decedent’s surviving spouse subsequently filed a petition requesting the trial court’s acceptance into probate of a holographic will, purportedly executed by the decedent, which the surviving spouse presented to the court. The original petitioner and another adult child of the decedent then filed motions contesting the validity of the holographic will. Following a bench trial, the trial court found the holographic will to be valid, accepted the will into probate, and named the surviving spouse as the personal representative of the decedent’s estate. The adult children contesting the holographic will have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. When Andrea Perry’s home sustained water damage, she made a claim under her Allstate insurance policy for the cost of repairs or replacement. Both Perry and Allstate agree that the damage is covered under the policy, and they agree on the total estimated cost. The single issue they dispute is whether Allstate is entitled to deduct the cost of labor as part of calculating “depreciation” to arrive at its net payment. Ohio law, fortunately, provides a simple answer. When an insurance policy is ambiguous, Ohio law requires courts to interpret the policy strictly against the insurer, so long as the insured’s interpretation is reasonable. We hold, as many have, that Perry’s reading of the term “depreciation” is a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous policy, and thus that Allstate may not include the cost of labor in calculating depreciation under its policy. We accordingly REVERSE the judgment of the district court dismissing this action and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Shase Howse sued several police officers and the City of Cleveland for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed the suit, concluding that neither the officers nor the City did anything wrong. We affirm.