The Petitioner, Lacey Jones, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for habeas corpus relief from his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and aggravated robbery. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his convictions are void and his sentence is illegal due to various errors made at trial and sentencing, including violations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), evidentiary errors, improper sentencing, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment summarily dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The Defendant-Appellant, Jacob Evan Coyne, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-202 (first degree murder); 39-13-403 (especially aggravated robbery). He received a total effective sentence of life plus 15 years. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because the State failed to show (1) evidence of premeditation, (2) evidence that the victim was robbed or that the Defendant intended to rob the victim, and because (3) evidence that was favorable to the Defendant was not given appropriate weight at trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal arises from the summary dismissal of a negligence action filed by a plaintiffmotorist against a truck driver and the driver’s employer. The plaintiff alleged that he was injured in a single-vehicle accident on Interstate 24 in Nashville, Tennessee, when he swerved to avoid tire debris from the truck driver’s trailer. The plaintiff further alleged that the truck driver and his employer were negligent in the maintenance and inspection of the vehicle, and that the truck driver acted negligently by leaving the debris on the roadway without attempting to retrieve it, warn other motorists, or call law enforcement. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The trial court granted the motion in part, finding no evidence that the tire blowout was caused by a failure in the maintenance and inspection of the tire. The court also found no evidence that the truck driver’s failure to call law enforcement caused the accident. But the court asked for supplemental briefing on whether a driver has a common-law duty to remove from a roadway tire debris that came from his vehicle and/or a duty to warn motorists of the debris. After additional briefing and a second hearing, the court summarily dismissed that claim as well, ruling that the defendant truck driver had no duty as a matter of law to attempt to retrieve the tire from the interstate highway and that there were no facts to support a finding that the defendant driver had sufficient time to do so. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to alter or amend, arguing that he was entitled to the benefit of an adverse inference for spoliation of evidence as a discovery sanction because the defendants failed to preserve the blown tire. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the plaintiff knew about the potential spoliation issue for six years and failed to raise it in his response to the motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Edmer Eudulio Barrios Garcia, Doublas Arguijo, Ardiles Yasdami Mendez Mendez, and Sudhaben Pankajkumar Patel are noncitizens. They were victims of grave crimes; they cooperated with law enforcement. They applied for U-visas and authorization to work; Mendez Mendez and Patel sought derivative U-visas and work authorization for some of their family members. These noncitizens have waited years for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)—a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—to adjudicate their applications. Plaintiffs have been and remain unable to obtain lawful employment, to visit their family members who live abroad, or to attain deferred-action status that would protect them from removal from this country. Plaintiffs sued USCIS and DHS, alleging that the agencies have unreasonably delayed placing the principal applicants on the U-visa waitlist and adjudicating Plaintiffs’ work-authorization applications. While this appeal pended, USCIS announced a new program for persons with pending U-visa applications known as the “Bona Fide Determination Process.” The parties contest whether this nascent program moots Plaintiffs’ claims.

To that end, we conclude that Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts that the principal petitioners’ delayed waitlist determinations have harmed Plaintiffs’ health and welfare; Plaintiffs’ waitlist claim should thus survive the Government’s motions to dismiss. Although we cannot review Plaintiffs’ work-authorization claim, the implementation of the Bona Fide Determination Process during this appeal compels us to conclude that Plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their complaints should they wish to challenge any delayed “bona fide” determinations. We thus REVERSE and REMAND.

Defendant, Timothy Whitaker, was convicted following a jury trial of attempted seconddegree murder, two counts of aggravated assault by use of a deadly weapon, two counts of aggravated assault with serious bodily injury, and misdemeanor reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of fourteen years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted second-degree murder and that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering partially consecutive sentences. Following our review of the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Williamson County jury convicted the Defendant, Steve Leslie Smith, of public intoxication. The trial court imposed a thirty-day sentence in the county workhouse to be suspended to supervised probation after five days of service. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred when it admitted evidence about a substance abuse and psychiatric facility near where the Defendant was arrested, and that the trial court committed plain error when it rejected his challenge for cause of three prospective jurors. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Kevin Tuvarey Gilmore, pleaded guilty in the Montgomery County Circuit Court to evading arrest creating a risk of death, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. § 39-16-603 (2018). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Defendant received a six-year sentence as a Range II offender, and the trial court would determine the manner of service. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, DeAngelo LeQuinte Berry, was convicted in the Montgomery County Circuit Court of first degree felony murder and aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and received a sentence of life plus nine years. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence from a cellular telephone and a Facebook account because the evidence was not admissible pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Evidence 403 and 901, that the trial court’s failure to grant a mistrial after a witness referred to an assault rifle constitutes plain error, and that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing. Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A review of the record on appeal reveals that the order appealed from does not constitute a final appealable judgment. As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.