The claimant has appealed from the dismissal of her claims against the State of Tennessee. Because the claimant did not file her notice of appeal with the clerk of this Court within the time permitted by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

In this divorce case, Kenneth F. Morgan, Jr. (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s judgment adopting a permanent parenting plan that designates Katherine D. Ward (“Mother”) as primary residential parent of the parties’ child and grants Father parenting time of every other weekend. Father also argues that the trial court erred in (1) allowing the expert psychologist tasked with a parental assessment to testify in the manner in which he did; (2) declining Father’s request to remove the child’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) for alleged bias; (3) ordering Father to pay two-thirds of the GAL fees awarded by the court; and (4) awarding Mother attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an appeal from a termination of parental rights case. The trial court determined that three grounds for termination existed and that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests. We vacate one ground for termination relied upon by the trial court due to the application of an incorrect standard in the court’s order, but we affirm the court’s reliance on the remaining grounds for termination and its best interests determination. The trial court’s termination of the father’s parental rights is accordingly affirmed.

A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Urshawn Eric Miller, of first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder for fatally shooting a convenience store employee during an attempted robbery of the store. The jury also convicted the defendant of the attempted second-degree murder of another store employee and of attempted especially aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, evading arrest, and resisting arrest. The jury imposed the death penalty for the first-degree murder convictions. The trial court merged the felony murder conviction into the premeditated murder conviction and the aggravated assault conviction into the attempted second-degree murder conviction, and it imposed an effective thirty-year sentence for the remaining convictions to run concurrently with the death sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences but vacated the application of the felony murder aggravating circumstance as to the felony murder conviction. Upon our automatic review, we conclude: (1) the trial court properly ruled on challenges to certain jurors for cause during individual voir dire; (2) the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator and his guilt of the convicted offenses; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to introduce a video recording of the defendant’s prior aggravated robbery during the penalty phase; (4) the death penalty generally, and lethal injection specifically, do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment; and (5) the death sentence satisfies our mandatory review pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentence of death; however, we reverse the portion of the intermediate court’s judgment vacating the application of the felony murder aggravating circumstance.

The Petitioner, Perry Brent Lanham, pleaded guilty to burglary and theft of property valued $2,500 or more, and he received an effective eight-year sentence on probation supervised by community corrections. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, contending that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he did not plead guilty knowingly and voluntarily. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. We affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

The Appellee, Christapher Baumgartner, was charged in the Bradley County Criminal Court with vehicular homicide by intoxication, a Class B felony, and driving under the influence (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor. He filed a motion to suppress his blood test results, arguing that he did not voluntarily consent to the blood draw. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and granted the motion, and the State appeals. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Jeremy Reynolds was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder at the conclusion of a jury trial in which the State was permitted to introduce evidence related to gang membership. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the evidence of premeditation was legally insufficient and reversed the conviction. The intermediate appellate court noted that the evidence was legally sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder, but it nevertheless remanded for a new trial based on its determination that the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting certain pieces of evidence related to gang membership. We accepted the State’s appeal. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction for premeditated first-degree murder. We further conclude that there was no reversible error on the part of the trial court in admitting evidence related to gang membership. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstate Reynolds’s conviction for premeditated first-degree murder.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Ana Mercedes Zometa-Orellana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, suffered regular beatings and rape by her domestic partner. She sought asylum and withholding of removal based both on political opinion and membership in a particular social group. An immigration judge (IJ) denied asylum and withholding of removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed that ruling. Since then, however, a crucial case on which both the BIA and the IJ relied to assess Zometa-Orellana’s particular social group was vacated by the Attorney General. And the IJ and BIA failed to consider the entire record in determining the El Salvadorian Government’s willingness to respond and Zometa-Orellana’s ability to relocate in El Salvador. For these reasons, we GRANT the petition, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

The Defendant-Appellant, Joseph Gevedon, pleaded guilty to two counts of driving under the influence and to one count each of leaving the scene of an accident, violation of the financial responsibility law, and simple possession of marijuana. He agreed to serve an effective sentence of three consecutive terms of eleven months, twenty-nine days, with ninety-six hours in confinement and the remainder on probation. He also agreed to a special condition that a restitution hearing would be held at a later time. A violation of probation warrant was issued before the restitution hearing was held, and following a hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant violated the terms of his probation, revoked his probation, and ordered him to serve his sentence in confinement and to pay $30,490.76 as restitution. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the trial court’s order requiring him to serve his sentence in confinement and its restitution order. After review, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal.

The father of a fourteen-year-old daughter appeals the propriety of two separate orders of protection issued upon the mother’s petition for the protection of their daughter. Because both orders of protection have expired, we dismiss the father’s challenges to the propriety of the orders of protection on the basis of mootness and decline the father’s claim to recover his attorney’s fees. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the father’s issues, the mother seeks to recover the attorney’s fees and costs she incurred in defending the father’s appeal. The Tennessee Supreme Court’s recent decision in New v. Dumitrache, 604 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2020), makes it clear that the legislative mandate in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-617(a)(1) extends to the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal by victims of domestic abuse, even if the respondent’s challenge to the order of protection is no longer justiciable. Accordingly, we hold that the mother is entitled to an award of the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs she incurred in defending this appeal and remand this case for the trial court to make the appropriate award.