On October 20, 2006, this Court issued an opinion partially granting habeas relief to Petitioner, Frank G. Spisak, and ordering a new mitigation phase trial. Spisak v. Mitchell, 465 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2006). Specifically, this Court found that Spisak received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the jury instructions at the penalty phase of Spisak’s trial unconstitutionally required the jury to be unanimous in its findings with respect to mitigating evidence. Respondent warden thereafter filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. On October 9, 2007, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment of this Court, and remanded the case to this Court for further consideration in light of Carey v. Musladin, 127 S.Ct. 649 (2006), and Schriro v. Landrigan, 127 S.Ct. 1933 (2007). After careful review and consideration of Musladin and Landrigan, we find that neither of the cases require reversal of our prior disposition of this case. Accordingly, we reinstate our opinion of October 20, 2006, partially granting habeas relief and ordering a new mitigation phase trial.

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Cari Ann Hamilton brought suit against Starcom Mediavest Group, Inc., and Leo Burnett USA, Inc., alleging that they violated ERISA § 510, 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (2005), by terminating her employment in retaliation for exercising her right to claim disability benefits. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that (1) Hamilton failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, and alternatively, (2) she failed to make the required showing that defendants’ proffered reason for firing her — the reorganization and hiring of candidates with greater experience — was a pretext to retaliate against her. She now appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. We agree with the district court’s second, alternative, finding and hold that Hamilton has failed to establish that defendants’ proffered reason for firing her was mere pretext, and accordingly AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Following a jury trial, Russell Wayne Hunt was convicted of health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347, conspiracy to commit health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and making false statements relating to health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1035. He was sentenced to five years of probation, a $6,000 fine, a $1,200 special assessment, and restitution in the amount of $151,161.78, to be paid jointly and severally with his co-conspirators. Hunt now argues that his convictions should be overturned because: (1) his Sixth Amendment right to present his own witnesses and establish his defense was violated by the Government’s ensuring that two primary defense witnesses would not be available to testify at trial; (2) the district court erred by refusing to admit exculpatory hearsay statements made by a codefendant; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. In the alternative, Hunt contends that the restitution order must be modified because the district court incorrectly calculated the amount owed. For its part, the Government, in a cross-appeal, contends that the sentence imposed by the district court is substantively unreasonable. Hunt’s arguments are unavailing, but the Government is correct that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Therefore, we affirm Hunt’s convictions while vacating his sentence and remanding the case for resentencing.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Jonathan Patrick Rose appeals his conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for selling a firearm to a known felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(d)(1) and 924(a)(2), and possessing an unregistered silencer in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 5861(d). For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM Rose’s conviction.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner-appellant Abdullah Sharif Kaazim Mahdi (f/k/a Vernon Smith) appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. Mahdi argues that the district court erred in finding that: (1) his trial counsel was not ineffective; (2) his appellate counsel was not ineffective; and (3) the retroactive application of a change in Ohio case law did not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of Mahdi’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.