Petitioner, Larry Johnson, appeals from the Lake County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged that he received an illegal sentence. We conclude Petitioner has failed to timely appeal or to follow procedural requirements, and the interest of justice does not require waiver of the requirements. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Sanket and Nehaben Patel applied for visas to stay in the United States on a temporary basis. After fourteen months with no news, they sued the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for failing to process their applications. When the agency granted their visas, the Director filed a motion to dismiss the case for mootness and attached an exhibit showing that the applications had been granted. Realizing that she had not filed the exhibit under seal, the Director moved to seal the exhibit shortly thereafter. The Patels accepted one victory (the granting of their temporary visas) and sought another (statutory penalties for the Director’s disclosure of their personal information). The district court granted the Director’s motion to dismiss the case and denied the Patels’ motion for civil penalties. We affirm.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Deaunta Belcher was convicted, and sentenced to life in prison, for his participation in a murder-for-hire scheme, hindering the investigation of a federal offense, and for two other offenses. On direct appeal, Belcher raises issues with both his murder-for-hire and obstruction convictions. Specifically, Belcher argues that his murder-for-hire conviction is invalid because the government and the court constructively amended the indictment such that he was sentenced for a crime with which he was never charged. Likewise, he claims that his obstruction conviction cannot stand because the government prejudicially varied from the indictment when it offered additional proof at trial to support the charge. Belcher also attests that the district court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal on the obstruction charge. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.

A Lawrence County jury convicted the Defendant, Charles Timothy Rowden, of first degree felony murder, second degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated arson. The trial court merged the two murder convictions and imposed an effective sentence of life without the possibility of parole. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court erred when it did not instruct the jury that the Defendant’s girlfriend was an accomplice as a matter of law; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; and (3) his attorney was ineffective. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments and remand for entry of an additional judgment form.

This appeal concerns the validity and enforceability of an oral loan agreement between former business partners. As discussed herein, we discern no error in the trial court’s enforcement of the parties’ agreement. As such, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Robert Whipple appeals the denial of his motions to suppress evidence. Whipple argued that law enforcement violated his Fourth Amendment rights when officers subpoenaed Walmart for his purchase history, searched his phone after the expiration of the warrant for his phone, and impermissibly seized his car. The district court denied Whipple’s motions. Finding no merit to these claims, we AFFIRM.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Insight Terminal Solutions, LLC (Insight) brought an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against all the defendants named in this lawsuit, alleging claims that were dismissed with prejudice by the bankruptcy court based upon the parties’ stipulation to do so. Autumn Wind Lending, LLC (Autumn Wind) was not itself a party to the adversary proceeding, but it became the parent company of Insight prior to Insight initiating its lawsuit in the bankruptcy court.

The question before us is whether the doctrine of res judicata bars Autumn Wind from now bringing these same claims against the same defendants who were absolved of liability to Insight as part of the bankruptcy court proceedings. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court dismissing Autumn Wind’s claims on the basis of res judicata and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. Under the Bank Secrecy Act, individuals with foreign bank accounts containing $10,000 or more must annually file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (“FBAR”) with the U.S. Department of the Treasury. An individual who fails to file an FBAR by the deadline risks civil penalties. If the failure to file was accidental, the government can assess a penalty of up to $10,000. If, however, the failure to file was willful, the civil penalty grows exponentially.

The government sued James Kelly to recover civil penalties, claiming that Kelly willfully failed to timely file FBARs for 2013, 2014, and 2015. The district court granted summary judgment to the government. Because Kelly’s failure to file was a willful violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, we affirm.

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Gina Moegle and her supervisor Susan Shaw, both employees of the Children’s Protective Services program in the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, appeal the district court’s partial denial of qualified immunity for eleven claims filed against various State of Michigan defendants by Mark Bambach and his minor children under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

We find that no clearly established law put the state defendants on notice that they were violating the Bambachs’ Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment rights. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of summary judgment and REMAND for entry of an order dismissing the Bambachs’ claims against the state defendants.

This case concerns a “Declaration of Additional Restrictive Covenants” applicable to an unimproved tract in a residential subdivision. In relevant part, the Declaration provides that, if a construction agreement could not be reached, the buyer is required to either (1) obtain a waiver of the exclusive builder provision, or (2) re-convey the property to seller at the original purchase price, excluding fees and costs. Here, Appellant/seller and Appellees/buyers could not agree on the building costs. The trial court determined that Appellant breached the Declaration and waived the right to enforce it when he failed to grant Appellees’ request for waiver of the exclusive builder provision and also refused to re-purchase the lot. Discerning no error, we affirm.