Week of Feb. 3 - 7, 2020

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Prabhu Ramamoorthy of sexual abuse after a woman sitting next to him on a flight woke up to find him either inserting or trying to insert his fingers into her vagina. Ramamoorthy appeals his conviction, claiming (1) that his right to a unanimous jury verdict was violated because his indictment was duplicitous, (2) that the statements he made to airport police should have been suppressed because he was never informed of his Miranda rights, and (3) that the statements he made to the FBI after arrest should have been suppressed because he did not validly waive his Miranda rights. Because his claims are meritless, we AFFIRM.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Dwain Barton’s neighbor, Jill Porter, falsely reported to police that Barton had shot a stray cat in his backyard in Lincoln Park, Michigan. Shortly thereafter, police officers, without a warrant for entry or arrest, forcibly entered Barton’s home and arrested him for animal cruelty. Barton was brought to the police station, booked, and then released on a $500 cash bond three hours later. Barton subsequently sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment for illegal entry into his home, arrest and prosecution without probable cause, and excessive force, as well as First Amendment retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment for Officer Dean Vann, one of the officers at the scene. The court held that Vann was entitled to qualified immunity on the illegal entry, wrongful arrest, and retaliatory arrest claim, and that Barton failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the excessive force claim (presumably entitling Vann to judgment as a matter of law). Barton challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Vann on the illegal entry, wrongful arrest, and excessive force claims. We reverse.

The defendant, Gregory Cook, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his original four-year sentence in confinement. Upon review of the record, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the defendant violated the terms of his probation, and the imposed sentence is proper. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Javon Jolarry Spivey, of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated burglary, employment of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony, and robbery. After merging the first degree premeditated murder and felony murder convictions, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of life plus thirty-seven years. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce a video and still photograph of him the police found on YouTube without proper authentication. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. Husband/Appellant argues that the trial court erred in granting a divorce and in enforcing the parties’ Marital Dissolution Agreement (“MDA”). The basis of Husband’s argument is that the parties’ marriage is void as bigamous because Wife/Appellee was married at the time the parties married. The trial court held that Wife’s Chilean marriage was void ab initio, thus rendering the parties’ marriage valid. As such, the trial court granted Wife a divorce and enforced the MDA. Husband appeals. We vacate the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to Wife under the MDA due to a lack of findings concerning the amount and reasonableness thereof. The trial court’s order is otherwise affirmed.

This is a termination of parental rights case, wherein mother and stepfather petitioned to terminate father’s parental rights as to his two minor children on the grounds that he had abandoned the children by failing to visit and by failing to support them. Additionally, mother and stepfather petitioned that stepfather be allowed to adopt the children. The trial court denied the termination petition, finding that father had not willfully abandoned the children because mother had thwarted his attempts to visit and support them. On appeal, we find that father did willfully abandon the children. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a determination of whether termination of father’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children. The trial court’s decision regarding stepfather’s petition to adopt the minor children must await the trial court’s determination on remand as to whether or not termination of father’s parental rights is in the best interest of the children.

The employee filed a petition for benefits alleging she was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”) while working for the employer. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court denied the employee’s request for benefits. The employer subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. Concluding the employer affirmatively negated an essential element of the employee’s claim based upon the doctrines of accord and satisfaction and res judicata, the trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed the employee’s claim. The employee has appealed, but failed to identify any issues or make any meaningful argument on appeal. We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer and certify as final its order dismissing the employee’s claim.

A Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel decided that an attorney should be suspended for one year for violating Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), 3.5(a) (impartiality and decorum of the tribunal), 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). The attorney appealed, and the trial court affirmed. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Chad Jeremy Kilgore, appeals the trial court’s order imposing confinement after finding a violation of his probation. In December 2016, the Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of forgery of over $1,000 in exchange for an effective threeyear sentence, suspended, and the trial court placed him on probation for two years and eleven months. In February 2019, a probation violation warrant, the Defendant’s third, was issued alleging multiple violations, including a new arrest. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation, ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation and when it ordered him to confinement. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.