A jury convicted petitioner Odraye Jones of capital murder. During the penalty phase, Jones’s counsel presented testimony from a clinical psychologist who diagnosed Jones with Antisocial Personality Disorder. The psychologist testified that Black men with this disorder (including Jones) would commit more murders—he claimed that about one in four “African-American urban males” suffered from the disorder, and the only treatment for them was to “throw them away, lock them up.” After hearing this testimony, the jury recommended the death penalty. The court accepted the recommendation and sentenced Jones to death.

Jones challenged his conviction and sentence through direct appeal and post-conviction review in Ohio’s courts, all of which affirmed the conviction and sentence. He then sought federal habeas relief. The district court denied Jones’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, his proposed amendment to that petition, and a motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We heard argument on thirteen issues certified for appeal from these orders and will affirm the district court’s judgment on all thirteen.

But after that argument, we issued a separate certificate of appealability for an additional issue: whether Jones received ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase because his attorneys failed to prepare expert witnesses properly, as shown by the psychologist’s racialized testimony. We hold that this issue is not procedurally defaulted, and that on our de novo review of the merits, trial counsel performed ineffectively by presenting racialized evidence during the penalty phase. Jones is entitled to a new sentencing. Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court with instructions to issue a writ of habeas corpus vacating Jones’s death sentence unless the State of Ohio conducts a new penalty phase proceeding within 180 days of remand.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Product Solutions International, Inc. (“PSI”) appeals the dismissal of its complaint against Aldez Containers, LLC (“Aldez”). PSI sued Aldez and associated parties in 2019 alleging various claims arising from a contract dispute. The district court dismissed Aldez from that suit because PSI failed to state a claim against Aldez. In 2021, PSI filed a second complaint solely against Aldez for the same conduct as the 2019 suit. The district court held that the 2021 suit was barred by res judicata. We AFFIRM for the reasons set forth below.

Defendant Liviu-Sorin Nedelcu pleaded guilty to RICO conspiracy. At sentencing, the district court increased his offense level based on the section of the Sentencing Guidelines that applies to money-laundering convictions. Nedelcu contends that this was an erroneous application because he was not convicted of money laundering. We disagree. Because the factual basis for Nedelcu’s plea agreement specifically established that he committed money laundering as a predicate for his RICO conviction, the Guidelines compelled the district court to sentence him “as if” he had been convicted of money laundering. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This appeal is the latest installment in a decade-long dispute over the way in which the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) clears trees in the rights-of-way it holds on the plaintiffs’ private property. The district court enjoined TVA from practicing a particular tree-clearance practice, referred to as the “15-foot rule,” until TVA prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. At issue here is the district court’s dissolution of that injunction, which was based in part on the court’s finding that TVA complied with the injunction by completing an EIS and, in the alternative, on equitable grounds because the new TVA policy adopted following completion of the EIS is different from the 15-foot rule. The injunction should not have been dissolved, however, because the district court has not yet determined, in light of the administrative record, whether TVA took a hard look at the environmental consequences of its action, and the agency’s action has not been shown to be so different from the 15-foot rule as to warrant a whole new suit to obtain judicial review.