NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. A Michigan jury convicted Frank Corridore of second-degree sexual criminal conduct for sexually abusing his granddaughter. Corridore appealed his conviction in state court but to no avail. By the time he filed a habeas petition in federal district court, he had been released from prison and discharged from parole. So the district court dismissed the petition, explaining that Corridore was no longer in custody and therefore could not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Corridore appeals, arguing that he is subject to lifetime sex-offender registration and electronic monitoring—requirements that he says meet the custody requirement. We disagree and affirm.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. During World War II, the federal government played a significant role in American oil and gasoline production, often telling refineries what to produce and when to produce it. It also rationed crude oil and refining equipment, prioritized certain types of production, and regulated industry wages and prices. All of this affected the operations of American oil companies at the time. But did it make the United States a refinery “operator” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601–75? We hold that it did not and reverse the district court’s contrary determination.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Enrique Amaya is currently serving three concurrent life sentences. He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging just one of his convictions. The district court denied the petition without reaching the merits. The court reasoned that even if his motion were successful, Amaya would still be in custody on the two unchallenged life sentences and that the $100 special assessment attached to Amaya’s challenged conviction did not warrant review in the context of a § 2255 petition. We AFFIRM.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Three voters and three Republican nominees to the electoral college in Michigan brought this suit in a bid to overturn the results of the state’s 2020 presidential election. The complaint plausibly alleged that Republican election challengers had been harassed and mistreated during vote counting at the TCF Center in Detroit, in violation of Michigan law. But the complaint also alleged that an international “collaboration”—with origins in Venezuela, extending to China and Iran, and including state actors in Michigan itself—had succeeded in generating hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes in Michigan, thereby swinging the state’s electoral votes to Joseph Biden. Many of those allegations—particularly the ones concerning Dominion voting machines—were refuted by the plaintiffs’ own exhibits to their complaint. Other allegations arose from facially unreliable expert reports; still others were simply baseless. The district court found the entirety of the plaintiffs’ complaint sanctionable, and ordered all of plaintiffs’ attorneys, jointly and severally, to pay the defendants’ and the City of Detroit’s reasonable attorney’s fees. We find only part of the complaint sanctionable, and thus reverse in part and affirm in part.