A Cheatham County jury convicted the Defendant, Demario Quintez Driver, of rape and coercion of a witness, and the trial court sentenced him to sixteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for rape and that the State’s closing argument amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

This is a dispute between a property owner and his homeowners’ association concerning the scope and applicability of restrictive covenants. Two restrictive covenants are at issue. One is a covenant contained in the neighborhood’s 1984 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions that limited usage of the homes to residential use as “a residence by a single family.” The other is a covenant contained in a 2018 Amendment that relaxed the 1984 residential use restriction by authorizing short-term rentals of no less than 30 consecutive days, subject to specific criteria. The plaintiff, who purchased a home in the development in 2015 and has been leasing it on a short-term vacation rental basis to third parties as a business venture, seeks a declaratory judgment that he may lease his home for rentals as short as two days. For its part, the homeowners’ association seeks to enforce the restrictive covenants in the 1984 Declaration as well as the 2018 Amendment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners’ association on both issues. In doing so, the court held that restrictions in the 1984 Declaration prohibited nonresidential renting. The court also held that Plaintiff’s current use of his property is subject to the 2018 Amendment, which authorized short-term leasing subject to stipulations including that “[t]the length of the lease must be for a minimum of 30 consecutive days.” The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three of her children. The juvenile court terminated on grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, persistence of conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility for her children. The court also determined that termination was in her children’s best interest. After a thorough review, we agree and affirm.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B section 2.02 from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal. We have determined the petition must be summarily dismissed due to numerous and substantive failures to comply with Rule 10B section 2.02, including the failure to file a copy of the motion for recusal, supporting documents filed in the trial court, and a copy of the trial court’s order denying recusal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The employee-decedent, a healthcare worker, died after contracting COVID-19. The employer and the decedent’s surviving spouse reached an agreement for the payment of death benefits pursuant to Tennessee’s Workers’ Compensation Law. However, the trial court declined to approve the settlement because the proposed agreement included a calculation of the maximum total benefit that was not consistent with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(15)(D). Thereafter, the trial court conducted a compensation hearing in which the only issue was the meaning and correct calculation of the maximum total benefit. The trial court concluded the maximum total benefit is calculated by multiplying the state’s average weekly wage as of the date of the employee’s death by 450 weeks. The employer has appealed. Upon careful review of the statutes at issue and relevant precedent, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify it as final.

In this appeal from attorney disciplinary proceedings, the hearing panel found that the attorney’s testimony about his income in a juvenile court proceeding to reduce his child support obligation violated Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, RPC 8.4(c). The hearing panel said that the attorney’s answers were carefully crafted to give the appearance of literal truth but were in fact dishonest in that they intentionally omitted relevant information fairly called for in the questions. The hearing panel found that the presumptive sanction was disbarment, but it reduced the sanction to a one-year suspension in light of the attorney’s prior unblemished forty-year legal career. The attorney appealed the hearing panel’s decision to the circuit court, which affirmed. The attorney now appeals to this Court. He maintains that, in context, his answers were truthful and responsive to the specific questions asked, and that there was no violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. He also contends that the sanction imposed by the hearing panel is overly harsh and an abuse of discretion. We affirm the trial court’s judgment upholding the hearing panel’s decision.

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. In deciding whether a case belongs in arbitration, a court typically asks whether the party bringing the claim has agreed to arbitrate. But sometimes it is difficult to discern exactly who is bringing what claim. Here, individual would be plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate certain claims, but the claim they seek to adjudicate is brought through an unusual procedure on behalf of an abstract entity.

This case presents issues of first impression for this court. The weight of authority and the nature of 502(a)(2) claims suggest that these claims belong to the plan, not to individual plaintiffs. Therefore, the arbitration provisions in these individual employment agreements which only establish the Plaintiffs’ consent to arbitration, not the plan’s do not mandate that these claims be arbitrated. Further, the actions of Cintas and the other defendants do not support a conclusion that the plan has consented to arbitration. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Charles Carson pled guilty to engaging in a racketeering conspiracy. In this direct appeal, he argues that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel prior to his guilty plea and that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We analyze the merits of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the factual record is sufficiently developed, reject Carson’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and affirm the district court’s denial of Carson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

The defendant, Arthur M. Stewart, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his original four-year sentence in confinement. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the revocation of the defendant’s probation but reverse the trial court’s imposition of the original sentence and remand for the trial court to make findings concerning the consequence imposed for the revocation in accordance with State v. Craig Dagnan, --- S.W.3d ---, 2022 WL 627247 (Tenn. Mar. 4, 2022).

The petitioner, Damonta M. Meneese, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding his petition untimely. Upon our review of the record, the applicable law, and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the dismissal.