This is a health care liability case. The trial court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss because Appellant failed to provide Appellees with the proper pre-suit notice under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(1). Discerning no error, we affirm.

Two children were removed from their grandmother’s custody and subsequently adjudicated dependent and neglected. The grandmother appeals the trial court’s denial of her petition for custody of the children, asserting that granting her custody is in the children’s best interest. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as to one child and dismiss the appeal as moot as to the other.

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Abulay Nian appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied Nian a certificate of appealability (COA) on all his claims, but we later granted him a COA solely on his claim that the state court improperly excluded evidence of juror misconduct in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. This case arises from Nian’s conviction of rape by cunnilingus. Following Nian’s conviction, a juror came forward to allege that another juror introduced extraneous information in the form of Nian’s criminal record and national origin into deliberations. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the state trial court excluded the juror’s testimony pursuant to Ohio Rule of Evidence 606(B)—Ohio’s so-called “aliunde rule.” That decision was affirmed on appeal. However, because we previously held that it is constitutional error for a state court to use Ohio’s aliunde rule to exclude evidence of a jury’s consideration of extraneous information, we reverse the judgment of the district court, conditionally grant Nian’s § 2254 petition, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to remand to the state trial court to conduct a proper hearing to determine whether a new trial is warranted.

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. When the English Crown sentenced Sir Walter Raleigh to death for treason without allowing him to cross-examine the key witness against him, Lord Cobham, it sparked a public outcry. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 44, 50 (2004). That controversy culminated in English law developing a right to confront witnesses. Id. at 44. Almost two centuries later, the American Founders enshrined that right in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

This case presents a wrinkle on Raleigh’s trial. What if Raleigh had, in fact, been allowed to cross-examine Cobham and uncover his motive to lie but—and here’s the catch—Raleigh was not allowed to reveal to the jury the portion of Cobham’s testimony disclosing that motive? Would that scenario have been any less offensive to principles of justice than an outright denial of Raleigh’s right to cross-examine Cobham? To ask those questions is to answer them. Confrontation of an adverse witness necessarily entails that the trier of fact be allowed to learn the material results of that confrontation. That did not happen with respect to a key witness in the murder trial of Dwight Miller. For that reason and others explained below, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals’s application of clearly established law (namely, the Supreme Court’s Confrontation Clause jurisprudence) was objectively unreasonable. We therefore reverse the district court’s denial of habeas corpus and remand for it to grant Miller a conditional writ of habeas corpus.

ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge. This appeal has its origins in the fatal shooting of Nancy Lewellyn by Shelby County, Tennessee, deputy sheriffs Robert Paschal and Marvin Wiggins. The representative of Lewellyn’s estate filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the deputies used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee that citizens have the “right to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . . seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV.

Deputies Paschal and Wiggins appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment based upon their claims of qualified immunity. Two features distinguish this case from the typical excessive force claim: the entire shooting incident was recorded by dashboard cameras and “screen shots”—stop action frames from the recordings—were relied upon by the district court when analyzing the shooting. When videotape footage exists, the reviewing court need not credit the version of a party who asserts facts “blatantly contradicted” by the videotape; rather it should view the facts in the light depicted by the videotape. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-81 (2007); see also Rudlaff v. Gillispie, 791 F.3d 638, 639 (6th Cir. 2015).

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the cause with instructions to grant summary judgment to defendants-appellants based upon qualified immunity.

The Petitioner, Elgene K. Porter, acting pro se, appeals the summary dismissal of his “Motion to Correct and/or Amend Sentence” pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Upon our review, we affirm.

The Defendant, Timothy Leon Ledford, pleaded guilty to eleven counts of aggravated assault, and he was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-four years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant challenges his sentence by arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence, denying him alternative sentencing, and ordering consecutive sentencing. We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

This appeal concerns a post-divorce child support matter. Elizabeth Dale Crafton (“Mother”) sued James Frederick Roberts (“Father”) for divorce. In 2007, the Circuit Court for Shelby County (“the Circuit Court”) entered a final decree of divorce in the case. In 2008, the Circuit Court entered a permanent parenting plan concerning the parties’ children. The Juvenile Court for Shelby County (“the Juvenile Court”) later accepted jurisdiction for child support matters. Father went on to file a series of motions seeking to be relieved from paying for private school tuition. In 2019, the Juvenile Court entered an order denying Father relief and resolving all outstanding matters. Father appeals, arguing among other things that the original child support order is void as against public policy for failure to adhere to the Child Support Guidelines, and that the succeeding orders are void, as well. As the original child support order did not entirely relieve the parents of their duty to support and otherwise was jurisdictionally sound, we hold that it is not void. We affirm.

Week of April 12, 2021 - April 16, 2021

RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a summons to a point-of-sale systems provider, seeking records related to Richard and Kimberly Gaetano and their cannabis businesses. Alleging the summons was issued in bad faith, the Gaetanos brought this action to quash the summons under 26 U.S.C. § 7609. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the Gaetanos lacked standing.

On appeal, the Government argues that § 7609 only waives the United States’ sovereign immunity to allow taxpayers to bring an action to quash certain third-party IRS summonses. As a matter of first impression, we conclude that the immunity waiver in § 7609 is subject to the statute’s exceptions. One of those exceptions applies because the summons here was issued by an IRS criminal investigator “in connection” with an IRS criminal investigation and the summoned party is not a third-party recordkeeper. See 26 U.S.C. § 7609(c)(2)(E). Without a statutory waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity, subject-matter jurisdiction cannot obtain. Accordingly, we affirm.