QUESTION: Is an energy authority allowed by state law to provide natural gas and propane distribution services outside its electric footprint?

OPINION: An energy authority created under the Municipal Energy Authority Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-36-101 et seq., is not authorized by the Act to provide natural gas or propane distribution services outside its electric footprint.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Jeronique Cunningham and his half-brother Cleveland Jackson robbed and shot several friends and their family members. A three-year-old girl, Jala Grant, and a seventeen-year-old woman, Leneshia Williams, were killed; six others were injured. Cunningham was indicted and tried on two aggravated-murder counts, an aggravated-robbery count, and six attempted-aggravated-murder counts. The aggravated-murder charges carried death-penalty and firearms specifications. Cunningham and Jackson were tried separately. The jury found Cunningham guilty on all counts and specifications and sentenced him to death. See State v. Cunningham (Cunningham II), 824 N.E.2d 504, 510–13 (Ohio 2004).

We consider eight issues in this habeas case. The first and second issues are juror-bias claims involving Cunningham’s jury foreperson Nichole Mikesell. Cunningham argues that Mikesell’s colleagues at the county’s children-services agency improperly relayed external information about Cunningham to her. He also argues that Mikesell’s relationship with the victims’ families affected the jury’s impartiality. He seeks a hearing to investigate jury bias on both fronts. Third, we consider whether Cunningham’s counsel ineffectively failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence. Fourth, we review whether Cunningham’s trial counsel ineffectively failed to investigate, obtain, and present expert testimony about ballistics. Fifth, we evaluate whether the trial court improperly restricted Cunningham’s ability to question prospective jurors during voir dire. Sixth, we decide whether the trial court failed to instruct the jury that it must determine Cunningham’s personal culpability before imposing a death sentence. Seventh, we determine whether the prosecution improperly failed to turn over witness statements to the defense. Finally, we consider whether the prosecution made improper closing arguments during the guilt and sentencing phases. CA6 No. 11-3005 R. 50 (7/27/11 Order at 2); R. 71 (10/13/11 Order at 1); R. 187 (7/28/20 Order at 3).

We cannot grant Cunningham relief for issues three through eight. But we conclude that Cunningham is entitled to proceed on his juror-bias claims. We therefore REVERSE and REMAND so that the district court can conduct an evidentiary hearing to investigate juror bias.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Decision or discovery? This case is about which of those events triggers the statute of limitations for a retaliation claim under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). The district court, in keeping with the statutory text and the traditional rule, concluded that Dr. Ali El-Khalil’s claim was time barred because the limitations period commenced when Oakwood Healthcare, Inc. decided not to renew El-Khalil’s medical-staff privileges, rather than when it notified El-Khalil of that decision five days later. We agree and AFFIRM.

This appeal concerns the trial court’s interpretation of a divorce decree and an incorporated marital dissolution agreement as applied in a conservatorship once the husband died. The wife appeals the trial court’s use of parol evidence in reaching its decision. We reverse the judgment.

Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) removed six then-children from the custody of Deanna D. (“Mother”) and David D. (“Father”), in August 2018 after receiving multiple referrals regarding the family. After the children were in foster care for over a year, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. DCS alleged, as statutory grounds for termination, abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home, failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children, persistence of conditions, severe abuse, and, in regards to Father only, a prison sentence of more than two years for conduct against a child. The trial court found that DCS proved each ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the children’s best interests. Mother and Father each appeal. Following a thorough review of the record, we affirm in part and reverse in part. We affirm the trial court’s ultimate holding that the parental rights of both Mother and Father should be terminated.

Because appellant did not timely file a Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B recusal appeal and the order appealed does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This is a lawsuit that challenges the appropriateness of care received by a cancer patient. Plaintiff originally filed suit in January 2018 and asserted a number of claims, some of which were predicated on alleged conduct occurring as early as August 2014. In an amended complaint, Plaintiff expanded her allegations, taking issue with conduct occurring as late as September 2016. The trial court ultimately dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint in toto as it concerned the Defendants at issue in this appeal. Due to a lack of clarity regarding the court’s specific bases for dismissal with respect to each of the claims involved, we vacate the judgment and remand for further consideration and findings.

Week of January 3, 2022 - January 7, 2022

The defendant, Timothy Howard Smartt, challenges the revocation of his community corrections placement on grounds that the sentence in case number 277012 expired before the issuance of the revocation warrant and that the court erred by ordering that he serve the balance of the total remaining sentences in confinement. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Edwin Alfonso Reeves, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of Count I, criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony; and Count II, possession with the intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance in a drug-free zone, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-212 (2018) (criminally negligent homicide); 39-17- 417(a)(4), (c)(2)(A) (2018) (subsequently amended) (possession with intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance); 39-17-432 (b)(1)(B) (establishing drug-free zones) (2018) (subsequently amended). The Defendant also pleaded guilty to Count III, possession with intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance in a drug-free zone. The court sentenced the Defendant to serve two years for criminally negligent homicide, four years for one possession conviction, and three years for the other possession conviction. The court imposed the sentences consecutively to each other, for an effective nine-year sentence, to be served consecutively to a sentence the Defendant was serving at the time of sentencing. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions in Counts I and II of criminally negligent and homicide possession of a Schedule II drug, and that the court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.