This appeal concerns termination of parental rights. Paternal grandparents Russell B. (“Grandfather”) and Louella B. (“Grandmother”) (“Grandparents,” collectively) filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Washington County (“the Trial Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Alexandria Y. (“Mother”) and Ricky B. (“Father”) to their minor child, Naomi B. (“the Child”). After a hearing, the Trial Court entered an order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the Child. Mother and Father appeal. Grandparents raise additional issues as appellees. We find, inter alia, that in addition to the grounds found by the Trial Court, the proof is clear and convincing in support of the grounds alleged by Grandparents of abandonment by failure to visit against Mother and persistent conditions against both Mother and Father. We find further, as did the Trial Court, that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court as modified, resulting in affirmance of the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the Child.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child. Because the trial court’s order lacks sufficient factual findings and legal conclusions, we vacate and remand.

In 2012, plaintiff HCTec Partners, LLC (“HCTec”) and James Prescott Crawford (“Crawford”) entered into an employment agreement under which Crawford was prohibited from disclosing any of HCTec’s confidential information and competing with HCTec for one year after Crawford’s employment with HCTec ended. When Crawford left HCTec to work for a competitor in 2019, HCTec sought to enforce the agreement. HCTec sued Crawford for breach of contract and sued Crawford’s new employer, The Rezult Group, Inc. (“Rezult”), for inducement of breach pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-50-109. After extensive discovery, HCTec moved for summary judgment as to both claims, which the trial court granted. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s decision in all respects.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Michael B. Johnson, II (“Johnson” or “Defendant Johnson”) appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (“First Step Act” or “the Act”), Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018). Johnson argues that the court’s 300 month sentence for his 2006 drug and firearm convictions is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court’s order denying Johnson’s First Step Act motion, VACATE his sentence, and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

COLE, Circuit Judge. Businesses across the United States have turned to a variety of sources to recoup economic losses attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs in this consolidated appeal are businesses that operate Michigan-based restaurants and entertainment venues that turned to their commercial property insurance policies, held by Cincinnati Insurance Company, for relief. These policies contained three provisions under which Cincinnati Insurance would compensate a policy holder if—and only if—the policy holder suffered direct physical loss or damage to its covered property, or if loss to a non-policy holder’s property prevented access to a policy holder’s property. Cincinnati Insurance denied plaintiffs’ claims for relief because, in its view, neither the presence of the COVID-19 virus nor shutdown orders issued by the Michigan governor constituted physical loss or damage.

Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that these pandemic-related losses were compensable under the policy. Cincinnati Insurance moved to dismiss the complaints. The district court found that, under Michigan law, “direct physical loss” to property covers only tangible harm or damage to property, rather than mere loss of use. Therefore, the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim. Because we believe that the Michigan Supreme Court would agree with this interpretation of the law, we affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaints.

Defendant, Sherman Lee Harris, pleaded guilty to delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance and received a suspended sentence of twelve years on supervised probation in 2011. In 2013, Defendant pleaded guilty to facilitation of delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance and received a suspended sentence of 10 years on supervised probation, to be served consecutively to his 12-year sentence. On January 29, 2021, after only hearing from Defendant’s probation officer regarding new charges in Shelby County, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation in both cases and ordered he serve the balance of his sentences. Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence without determining that it was reliable or that there was good cause to admit the evidence. After our review, we reverse and remand the judgments of the trial court because the State only produced unreliable hearsay evidence and thus failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant had violated the law. On remand, the trial court should hold another hearing to determine if Defendant violated his probation.

The plaintiff in this action filed a petition for declaratory judgment to quiet title to his farm in Maury County, Tennessee. In his petition, the plaintiff asked for all relief necessary to quiet title, including a declaration on the boundaries of his farm and a declaration on his rights to the disputed property. In their answer, the defendants asserted adverse possession under Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 28-2-102 and -103. The plaintiff later nonsuited one of his claims and, during the hearing on his motion for summary judgment, stated that he was seeking only a declaration on where the boundaries of his farm were “on the face of the earth.” Finding that matters related to possession of the property were not at issue, the trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff and declared the location of his “legal boundary.” The court then denied the defendants’ Motion for Relief from Judgment under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 52.02, 58, 59.04, 60.01, and 60.02. On appeal, the defendants contend, inter alia, that the trial court’s order was not final because it did not adjudicate the parties’ respective rights to possess the area in dispute. We agree. Because the purported final judgment does not resolve all of the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

The employee suffered serious injuries as she was placing luggage in the trunk of a car when a second car struck her and pinned her between the two vehicles. The workers’ compensation insurer for the purported employer denied the employee’s claim, asserting among other defenses that the employee’s injuries did not occur in the course and scope of her employment. Following the entry of an order allowing the employee to cancel an expedited hearing, the employee filed a motion for partial summary judgment asserting she was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law finding that her injuries occurred in the course and scope of her employment. The parties agreed to a hearing date for the motion, but the insurer subsequently requested the court to continue the hearing to allow it more time to conduct discovery. The trial court denied the motion to continue the hearing and granted the employee’s motion for partial summary judgment, concluding the undisputed material facts showed the employee was working in her capacity as marketing director for the employer on the date of her injury. The insurer has appealed. We reverse the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment to the employee and remand the case.

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Andrew Johnson, a Michigan prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. In his petition, Johnson alleged that his plea and sentencing proceedings in state trial court violated the federal Constitution. Pending before that same state trial court, however, is a postconviction motion for relief, one that raises the same issues Johnson asks the federal courts to resolve in a habeas posture. The district court dismissed Johnson’s petition due to his failure to exhaust the remedies available to him in state court. We now affirm.

The Petitioner, Matthew Reynolds, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated kidnapping, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for not properly investigating the case and not requesting a sequestered jury, a change of venue, and a severance from his co-defendants. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying relief.