Petitioner, Maurice “Ricky” Blocker, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding effective assistance of counsel at both trial and on appeal. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Five municipal employees sued the City of Cleveland and their supervisor under a host of federal and state grounds, the most prominent being that the city illegally determined night and day shifts based on the color of the officers’ skin. The district court rejected many of the claims at the pleading stage and rejected the unlawful discrimination claims at summary judgment. Triable issues of fact remain over the anti-discrimination claims, however, because the employees’ shifts count as “terms” of employment under Title VII. We thus reverse that component of the district court’s decision and affirm the rest.

Defendant Kisha C. Hollins-Johnson appeals the district court’s judgment in her criminal case after pleading guilty to student loan fraud and theft of government funds, conspiracy to commit those crimes, making false statements to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and witness tampering. The government moves to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate-waiver provision in Hollins-Johnson’s plea agreement. Hollins-Johnson responds that the appellate waiver in her plea agreement does not expressly cover a challenge to “the manner in which a sentence is to be served and the timing of the sentence.”

The motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

The Defendant, Sharod Winford Moore, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In the first direct appeal, this court found that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction but that the Defendant waived all other issues for failure to file a timely motion for new trial. The Defendant was subsequently granted a delayed appeal. He now argues that (1) the trial court erred in allowing the State to present unfairly prejudicial evidence of his alleged gang membership, (2) the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by making inflammatory and prejudicial remarks about his alleged gang membership in closing argument, (3) the trial court erred in not allowing evidence of the victim’s propensity for intoxication and violence, and (4) the trial court erred in determining that a State’s intellectually disabled witness was competent to testify. We affirm the conviction.

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

Plaintiff Joseph Riccardi brought this action for negligent construction of his residence against Carl Little Construction Company (“Defendant”), builder of the residence, and the Bridgewater Condominiums Property Owners Association (“Bridgewater POA”). He alleged that Defendant negligently built the residence on non-compacted fill dirt, causing structural and cosmetic damages to the residence. Plaintiff alleged that Bridgewater POA was contractually responsible for repairs to the exterior of the residence. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant based on its finding that the statutes of limitation and repose had run. The court held that Bridgewater POA was liable for repairs to the porches and patios of the property, but not the foundation or the cracks in the interior. We vacate summary judgment against Defendant, finding that Plaintiff presented evidence sufficient to establish genuine issues of material fact regarding when Plaintiff’s cause of action accrued and whether Defendant fraudulently concealed the defects in the residence. We affirm the judgment against Bridgewater POA.

Following a judgment in their favor in a personal injury action, the defendants were granted an award of discretionary costs in the amount of $3,499.81. Appellant appeals, raising several arguments in opposition to the costs awarded. Because many of Appellant’s arguments were not properly raised in the trial court, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion on the remaining issues, we affirm.

This appeal arises from a divorce. Acting pro se, the former husband fails to present an issue for this Court to review. Because his brief falls well short of the requirements of both the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and the rules of this Court, we dismiss the appeal.

Week of July 19, 2021 - July 23, 2021

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Ten months ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention imposed an eviction moratorium on rental properties across the country. It found authority for its unprecedented action in a provision of the Public Health Service Act of 1944. Plaintiffs sued, arguing that the provision does not grant the CDC the sweeping authority it claims. The district court found in their favor and granted them declaratory relief. We affirm.