Petitioner, Demarkus Taylor, appeals from the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition as untimely. After reviewing the record and applicable case law, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

Defendant, Jamarcus Miller, was indicted by a Shelby County grand jury for first-degree premeditated murder (Count 1) and first-degree felony murder for a killing in the perpetration of attempted robbery (Count 2). A jury convicted Defendant of the lesserincluded offense of second-degree murder in Count 1, and convicted Defendant as charged in Count 2. On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction in Count 2. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

John Kelly Gross, Defendant, was convicted following a bench trial of one count of aggravated burglary and one count of vandalism. As a result, Defendant was sentenced to an effective sentence of six years. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for aggravated burglary. After a review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Marvin Glenn Borden, was charged with one count of possession of more than 0.5 gram of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, which was denied by the trial court. Thereafter, Defendant pled guilty to the possession of methamphetamine charge with an agreed four-year sentence as a Range I offender to be served in confinement. The State dismissed the drug paraphernalia charge. Defendant reserved a certified question of law under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, challenging the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Dontayelle Balfour, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition. Petitioner argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to adequately consult with him and failed to fully investigate witnesses that Petitioner requested prior to Petitioner’s guilty plea to second degree murder. Following a review of the briefs of the parties and the record, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

This is an action to revive a judgment originally entered in 1987; the judgment debtor moved to have the judgment set aside, contending that the judgment was void. The trial court denied the motion and renewed the judgment; the judgment debtor appeals. Upon our review, we conclude that the record shows that the debtor answered the complaint but failed to appear at the trial, which proceeded in his absence and led to the judgment; consequently, the judgment was valid. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to set aside the judgment.

Petitioner appeals the denial of his motion to recuse the trial court in an attorney’s fees lawsuit. Because the Petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 10B of the Rules of Tennessee Supreme Court, we affirm the trial court’s ruling.

A Rhea County Circuit Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Michael Powell, of one count of aggravated statutory rape. The trial court imposed a sentence of three years and nine months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

MERRITT, Circuit Judge. The government appeals the district court’s grant of Defendant Joseph H. Ward, III’s motion to suppress under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The government argues that the district court erred in failing to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule established in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). We conclude that the government failed to establish a sufficient nexus between Ward’s drug-dealing and his home. We therefore AFFIRM the district court.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. A Michigan jury convicted Douglas Harrie Stewart of the premeditated murder of his estranged wife, Venus Stewart. At trial Stewart’s accomplice testified that Stewart persuaded him to help in the murder by claiming that Venus was harming the couple’s children and that, if she ended up killing them, Stewart would go on a “rampage” and “go after her family and the lawyers and prosecutors and jury[.]” Stewart moved for a mistrial based on his accomplice’s testimony about what he had said, arguing that its inflammatory nature prejudiced him in the eyes of the jury. A state appellate court rejected Stewart’s due-process challenge to the accomplice’s testimony. This case asks: Was the state court’s decision contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)? We answer no and affirm the denial of habeas relief.