DAMON J. KEITH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Dealer Computer Services, Inc. (“DCS”) appeals the district court’s denial of its motion to vacate an arbitration award that did not preclude class arbitration of contract claims brought by Defendants Dub Herring Ford, et al. (“Dealers”) against DCS. DCS argues the district court erred by failing to find the arbitration panel both exceeded its powers in violation of 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4) and acted with “manifest disregard of the law.” DCS also appeals the district court’s denial of its related motions for default judgment and reconsideration.

We conclude the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider DCS’s motion to vacate the arbitration award because the matter was not ripe for judicial review. Therefore, we VACATE the orders of the district court with respect to DCS’s pending motions and REMAND the case to the district court with instructions to DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Respondent Ralph Coyle, a warden, appeals the district court’s order granting Shawn L. Hawkins a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that, at sentencing, his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to conduct any investigation for mitigation purposes. Hawkins, in turn, appeals the district court’s denial of habeas relief on all other grounds asserted in his Amended Habeas Petition. For reasons explained below, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel and we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of relief on all other grounds.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Doris A. Redmon appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing her claims against defendants-appellees Sud-Chemie Inc. Retirement Plan for Union Employees, Retirement Plan Committee for the Sud-Chemie Inc. Retirement Plan for Union Employees, and Sud-Chemie Inc. (collectively, “Sud-Chemie”). Redmon alleges that Sud-Chemie failed to pay her survivor benefits due under her husband’s retirement plan and failed to provide her with the plan information she requested in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The district court found that Redmon’s claims were time-barred by the applicable Kentucky statute of limitations and dismissed her claims. Redmon now appeals, arguing that the district court applied the wrong state statute of limitations and erroneously calculated the date her claims accrued. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the dismissal of Redmon’s claims.