RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. This case presents an unfortunate situation in which, despite the fact that the habeas petitioner has an unquestionably valid claim on the merits, procedural grounds preclude our ability to grant him relief. That petitioner, Lamarr Robinson, was convicted of various offenses by a Michigan trial court in 2011 and sentenced under Michigan’s then-existing sentencing scheme. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence, and the Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear his case. Robinson then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, which the district court denied.

On appeal to this court, Robinson’s sole claim is that a series of judicial decisions postdating his sentencing have established that his sentence was imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The state of Michigan does not contest that conclusion, but it does persuasively argue that Robinson is not entitled to habeas relief because he failed to exhaust his sentencing claim in state court. For the reasons set forth below, we VACATE the portion of the district court’s decision dealing with Robinson’s sentencing claim and REMAND the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Zeon Chemicals fired James Jenkins on the ground that he violated the company’s attendance policy. Consistent with the collective bargaining agreement, the local union took Jenkins’ discharge to arbitration. The arbitrator reinstated Jenkins. Zeon challenged the award in federal court, and the district court vacated the award. We reverse.

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Coleman Miller’s passing gave birth to a dispute over his life insurance proceeds. Coleman’s life insurance policy arose from his federal service and is governed by the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act of 1954. Because Coleman failed to designate a policy beneficiary, the federal government distributed Coleman’s life insurance proceeds to his only child, Courtenay Miller, in accordance with the statutorily directed federal distribution scheme. Coleman’s former spouse, however, claimed entitlement to the proceeds pursuant to a separation agreement signed at the time of the couple’s divorce.

Eventually, Courtenay filed a complaint in federal court for declaratory relief. Finding the absence of a substantial question of federal law, the district court dismissed the complaint for a lack of jurisdiction. We agree and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.