KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Petitioners-Appellants Merita Muka, her husband, Ilirian Muka, and their children, Lionela and Brajen Muka (collectively referred to as “the Mukas”), appeal the district court’s dismissal of their habeas petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the Mukas argue that: (1) in the instant case, application of the provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005, 8 U.S.C. § 1252, divesting the district court of jurisdiction over writs of habeas corpus in immigration cases would violate the Suspension Clause of the U. S. Constitution; and (2) the Mukas are entitled to protection from removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i).

For the reasons discussed below, we disagree with the Mukas’ first argument, which is dispositive in this case, and AFFIRM the district court.

WHITE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Juliet M. Murphy filed this putative class action, alleging that Defendant National City Bank’s practice of charging fees as a condition of cashing official checks violated Michigan’s Uniform Commercial Code (MUCC), M.C.L. 440.3412, 440.3413, and 440.3414. The district court granted Defendant summary judgment on pre-emption grounds, and did not reach the MUCC issue. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the reasons the district court set forth in a companion case, i.e., that the MUCC is not violated by a bank charging a nonaccountholder a fee to cash its teller’s check. See NNDJ, Inc. v. Comerica, Inc., 584 F. Supp. 2d 957 (E.D. Mich. 2008).

SILER, Circuit Judge. Defendant Nicolas Carranza appeals a jury verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages to victims of torture, extrajudicial killing, and crimes against humanity in violation of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA). Carranza argues that the district court abused its discretion by (1) holding that extraordinary circumstances justified equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, (2) not granting comity to the Salvadoran Amnesty Law, and (3) making various evidentiary rulings. He also contends that the district court erred in its instruction to the jury on command responsibility. We AFFIRM.