A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The original petition, which asserted multiple grounds for termination, was filed in June of 2016. At the time, the ground of abandonment for failure to visit and support required the petitioners to prove the parent’s failure to visit and support the child was, inter alia, willful. Prior to trial, the petitioners filed an amended complaint to assert, inter alia, the ground of abandonment based on the amended statute, which did not require proof of willfulness. When the case went to trial, the court based its ruling on the grounds asserted in both the original and amended petition, considered two different four-month periods for the ground of abandonment—one preceding the filing of the original petition and one preceding the filing of the amended petition—and determined that all of the alleged grounds had been proven and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. This appeal followed. We have determined that the petitioners failed to prove the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility of the child. We also hold, inter alia, that the trial court erred in considering two different fourmonth periods for the ground of abandonment because the claims asserted in the amended petition arose out of the same conduct as that set forth in the original petition; thus, the amendment related back to the date of the original pleading. Nevertheless, the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s determination that the petitioners proved grounds based on the mother’s conduct during the relevant period preceding the filing of the original petition. We also find the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Having affirmed the trial court’s determination that two grounds were established and that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

This is a post-divorce case involving a husband’s petition to terminate his alimony obligation. Husband argued that the wife cohabited with a paramour, which, pursuant to the parties’ MDA, terminated his alimony obligation. The trial court, however, found that wife and her paramour did not cohabit with one another and denied husband’s petition. Additionally, the trial court denied wife’s request for attorney’s fees, finding that her increased income, combined with the alimony she was receiving from husband, allowed her to afford to pay her attorney’s fees at trial. Wife and Husband raise separate issues on appeal. We affirm.

Defendant, Demarius Jerome Pitts, pleaded guilty to possession of a Schedule IV drug with intent to sell or deliver. After denying judicial diversion, the trial court sentenced Defendant to serve three years to be suspended to supervised probation. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his request for judicial diversion. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Derrick D. Carr, was indicted by a Wilson County grand jury for two counts of first-degree murder, one count of attempted first-degree murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and two counts of reckless endangerment involving a deadly weapon. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Petitioner pled guilty to second-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder and received concurrent twenty-five-year prison sentences. Petitioner subsequently filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief claiming that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he had newly discovered evidence from one of the victims. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. After a careful review of the record, we affirm.

We assumed jurisdiction over these appeals pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-3-201(d)(1) (2009 & Supp. 2019) and Rule 48 of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court and ordered expedited briefing and oral argument. The issue we must determine is whether the trial court properly issued a temporary injunction enjoining the State from enforcing its current construction of the eligibility requirements for absentee voting stated in Tennessee Code Annotated section 2-6-201(5)(C) and (D) (2014 & Supp. 2019). The injunction temporarily mandated the State to provide any eligible Tennessee voter, who applies to vote by mail in order to avoid transmission or contraction of COVID-19, an absentee ballot in upcoming elections during the pendency of pandemic circumstances. The injunction further mandated the State to implement the construction and application of Tennessee Code Annotated section 2-6-201(5)(C) and (D) that any qualified voter who determines it is impossible or unreasonable to vote in-person at a polling place due to the COVID-19 situation shall be eligible to check the box on the absentee ballot application that ‟the person is hospitalized, ill or physically disabled and because of such condition, the person is unable to appear at the person’s polling place on election day; or the person is a caretaker of a hospitalized, ill or physically disabled person,” and have that absentee voting request duly processed by the State in accordance with Tennessee law. At oral argument before this Court, the State conceded that, under its interpretation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 2-6-201(5)(C) and (D), persons who have underlying medical or health conditions which render them more susceptible to contracting COVID-19 or at greater risk should they contract it (“persons with special vulnerability to COVID-19”), as well as those who are caretakers for persons with special vulnerability to COVID-19, already are eligible to vote absentee by mail. We hold that injunctive relief is not necessary with respect to such plaintiffs and persons. We instruct the State to ensure that appropriate guidance, consistent with the State’s acknowledged interpretation, is provided to Tennessee registered voters with respect to the eligibility of such persons to vote absentee by mail in advance of the November 2020 election.

With respect to those plaintiffs and persons who do not have special vulnerability to COVID-19 or who are not caretakers for persons with special vulnerability to COVID- 19, we hold that the trial court erred in issuing the temporary injunction. Accordingly, we vacate the temporary injunction. Recognizing that absentee ballots already have been cast for the August 6, 2020 election consistent with the trial court’s temporary injunction, and mindful of the goal of avoiding alterations to election rules on the eve of an election, the absentee ballots of all Tennessee registered voters who timely requested and submitted an absentee ballot by mail for the August 6, 2020 election pursuant to the trial court’s temporary injunction and which absentee ballots otherwise meet the requirements of the absentee voting statutes shall be duly counted. These cases are remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This opinion is not subject to rehearing under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 39, and the Clerk is directed to certify this opinion as final and to immediately issue the mandate.

Week of August 3, 2020 - August 7, 2020

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Todd Courser was a member of the Michigan House of Representatives. His affair with fellow-representative Cindy Gamrat and his related misconduct lost him that office. Courser, however, does not see himself as the source of his misfortunes and instead alleges that the Defendants—Keith Allard, Benjamin Graham, and Joshua Cline—conspired together and with the Michigan House of Representatives to remove him from office. Each Defendant worked for Courser and Gamrat as their legislative aides. Two of them, Allard and Graham, went to the press to expose Courser’s and Gamrat’s affair, Courser’s attempted coverup, and Courser’s misuse of his public office for political and personal purposes. The Detroit News coverage prompted the Michigan House of Representatives to issue a report and hold a hearing on the allegations. Courser resigned before he could be expelled.

This case is one of several that Courser and Gamrat have filed against various persons that they believe conspired against them to end their political careers. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment of dismissal of all claims against all Defendants

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Between 2009 and 2015, Benjamin Bradley ran a drug trafficking conspiracy that distributed a lot of opioid pills in Tennessee. After he pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and money laundering charges, the district court sentenced him to 17 years in prison and ordered him to forfeit a million dollars, two cash payments, and five properties. We vacated the forfeiture order in light of Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017). On remand, the court found additional facts and issued a similar forfeiture order requiring Bradley to give up a million dollars, the two cash payments, and four (instead of five) properties. Bradley challenges that order on statutory, factual, and constitutional grounds. We affirm.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Zackery Beck claims to have been assaulted by other inmates while detained at the jail in Hamblen County, Tennessee. He seeks damages from Hamblen County Sheriff Esco Jarnagin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But his claim faces an immediate obstacle: Sheriff Jarnagin had no direct involvement in Beck’s detention, and § 1983 does not impose vicarious liability on supervisors for their subordinates’ actions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). Beck responds that the overcrowded jail has repeatedly flunked minimum standards and that Jarnagin has long known of its failures. Beck thus seeks to hold Jarnagin liable for his assault on the ground that Jarnagin has been deliberately indifferent to inmate safety. Yet our existing caselaw would not have clearly signaled to Jarnagin that his responses to the overcrowding problem were so unreasonable as to violate the Fourteenth Amendment. We thus reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Jarnagin.

The court received a petition for rehearing en banc. The original panel has reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision. The petition then was circulated to the full court. Less than a majority of the judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc.

Therefore, the petition is denied.