GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Homero Quintanilla Navarro appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release. He argues that his poor health, coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic and his status as a non-violent offender, tipped the balance of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in his favor, so the district court abused its discretion by coming to the opposite conclusion. We disagree and affirm.

The Defendant, Ida Veronica Thomas, pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at $60,000 or more, but less than $250,000. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve twelve years on community corrections and scheduled a subsequent restitution hearing. At the restitution hearing, the trial court ordered restitution in the amount of $151,385 to be paid at a rate of $75 per month. On appeal, among other issues, the Petitioner challenges the trial court’s payment schedule for the restitution, $151,285 at $75 per month for twelve years, which cannot be completed during the length of the Defendant’s sentence. The State concedes this is error and agrees that a remand is the appropriate remedy as to this issue. After reviewing the record, we conclude that restitution is appropriate in this case, but we remand for the trial court: (1) to order a presentence report as required by statute in restitution cases; and (2) to consider the Defendant’s financial resources, future ability to pay, and length of her community corrections sentence as it relates to a payment schedule for restitution.

Defendant, Floyd Antonius Taylor, was indicted for two counts of delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance of .5 grams or more, with the second count occurring within a drug-free zone. The counts were severed, and Defendant received a jury trial on Count 2. The jury found Defendant guilty as charged. Count 1 was subsequently dismissed. Defendant received a fifteen-year sentence. Defendant filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. Defendant filed a notice of appeal and argues that certain evidence was inadmissible under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Ronald D. McCallum, Jr., was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and vandalism, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. § 39-13-402 (2018) (aggravated robbery); § 39-14-408 (2018) (vandalism); § 39-14-105 (2018) (grading for vandalism). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to ten years’ confinement at 85% service for each aggravated robbery conviction and to eleven months, twenty-nine days for the vandalism conviction. The court imposed partial consecutive service, for an effective twenty-year sentence at 85% service. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during her closing argument. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Charles Hampton, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree premeditated murder, arguing (1) the post-conviction court erred in refusing to consider an expert’s testimony, (2) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek the suppression of the Petitioner’s statements to police, and (3) his mandatory life sentence as a juvenile offender is unconstitutional because it is the “functional equivalent” of life without parole. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Craig Dagnan, Defendant, violated the conditions of probation, and the trial court revoked his probation but ordered his probation reinstated after eleven months and twenty-nine days’ incarceration. Defendant was granted a furlough from jail to attend an inpatient drug and alcohol program. After being dismissed from the inpatient program, Defendant failed to report back to jail and absconded. He was charged with escape, and a revocation warrant was issued. He was apprehended in Georgia and returned to Tennessee. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered Defendant to serve the balance of his six-year sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Michael Bland, Petitioner, was indicted for and convicted of first-degree murder. Petitioner received a life sentence. This Court affirmed Petitioner’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal, and our supreme court denied further appellate review. State v. Michael Bland, No. W2014-00991-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 3793697, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 16, 2015), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2015). Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal arises from a personal injury action. The plaintiff filed this action more than one year after the vehicle collision from which the cause of action accrued. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s action was untimely. The plaintiff filed a response arguing that the statute of limitations for personal injury actions was extended to two years, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-3-104(a)(2), due to the traffic citation issued to the defendant for failure to exercise due care in violation of section 55-8-136 as a result of the vehicle collision. The Trial Court found that section 28- 3-104(a)(2) was applicable to extend the statute of limitations to two years because the defendant had been charged with a criminal offense and a criminal prosecution had been commenced against him. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding after a short-term marriage. The husband challenges the trial court’s decisions regarding his parenting time, the calculation of his income, and its award of alimony to the wife. We affirm.

In this appeal from a final decree of divorce, Husband challenges the trial court’s division of the marital estate and the award of alimony in futuro. He also raises issues concerning the court’s denial of his request to rescind a mediated settlement agreement and to pay the alimony in solido award in installments. Discerning no abuse of discretion, we affirm.