Plaintiff filed suit for damages alleging that she had been injured when the headstone at her deceased brother’s grave fell on her and broke bones in her hand. After Defendant, the installer of the headstone, moved for summary judgment, the trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. On appeal, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s summary judgment order dismissing Plaintiff’s claim which is based on Defendant’s alleged negligence in installing the headstone.

PER CURIAM. Lamont Harvey appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We affirm.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. To recite the facts in this case is essentially to decide it. The short version is that an agency within the Department of Agriculture summarily approved a proposed plan for dry-bean crop insurance in Michigan based upon the mistaken belief that the terms of the proposed endorsement for the Michigan policy were identical to the terms of the endorsement for a Minnesota policy that the agency had approved the year before. But the terms of the two endorsements were quite different, because the Michigan endorsement contained a different pricing mechanism—for determining the beans’ “harvest price”—than the mechanism the agency had approved as part of the Minnesota endorsement. That difference later caused significant harm to Michigan farmers who had purchased the coverage, some of whom then brought this suit. In the district court, the government compounded the agency’s mistake when it mistakenly told the district court that the pricing mechanisms in the Michigan and Minnesota endorsements were the same. Based in part upon that representation, the district court granted summary judgment to the government. On appeal, the government’s brief unhelpfully elides both mistakes rather than acknowledge them; but Plaintiffs’ counsel on appeal has made the existence of those mistakes clear enough. We therefore reverse in part the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Kevion McDonald, Defendant, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for one count of attempted first degree murder resulting in serious bodily injury and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of both counts as charged in the indictment. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of thirty-one years. The trial court denied a motion for new trial. Defendant initiated this appeal, arguing that the trial court: (1) improperly admitted a photographic lineup into evidence; (2) committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on the definition of premeditation; and (3) improperly sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years in incarceration for attempted first degree murder resulting in serious bodily injury. Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence at trial. After a thorough review of the record, we determine that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury with the definition of premeditation, an element of the offense of attempted first degree murder. However, we find the error harmless because the proof of premeditation was overwhelming. As a result, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The Defendant, Jimmie Liddell, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of four counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony; one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony; and one count of solicitation of aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-504 (2018) (aggravated sexual battery), 39-12-101 (2018) (criminal attempt), 39-13-528 (2018) (solicitation of a person under eighteen years of age). The trial court imposed an effective sentence of 110 years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Damon Johnson, of second-degree murder, and the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-four years’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, argues the trial court improperly commented on his right not to testify, and asserts the trial court erred in sentencing. Following our review of the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Ronald Honaker, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel prior to and during his guilty plea hearing. Upon our review of the record, arguments of the parties, and pertinent authorities, we affirm the denial of the petition.

In 2020, the Defendant, Rickey Benson, filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 36.1 seeking to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court summarily denied the Defendant’s motion for failure to state a colorable claim. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This case concerns a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion for relief from a final judgment in a suit for dissolution of a business partnership. The trial court found grounds for dissolving the partnership and ordered the parties to liquidate the partnership’s assets. Each party would be liable for his or her pro-rata share of any outstanding debt. Before any accounting was filed, the defendant began representing herself, and at the instruction of the court, she informed the clerk and opposing counsel of her address. Soon thereafter, Defendant moved to a different address but never informed the clerk or opposing counsel of the change of her address. Consequently, the defendant did not receive notice of the plaintiff’s motion to adopt his proposed final accounting or the order granting such motion. The final order awarded the plaintiff a judgment against the defendant for her share of the outstanding debts that plaintiff had paid. When the defendant discovered the judgment against her, she filed a motion for relief under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. The trial court denied the motion, finding there was no “mistake” because plaintiff’s counsel sent notice to the defendant’s last known address. This appeal followed. We affirm.

This case involves claims brought under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and the Tennessee Real Estate Broker License Act, along with other related claims. After a twoday trial, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them treble damages and attorney’s fees. The defendants appealed. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.