This case involves a forcible entry and detainer action regarding a parcel of real property that was purchased at a foreclosure sale. The purchaser at foreclosure brought this detainer action against the previous owners of the property. The General Sessions Court ruled in favor of the purchaser, as did the Circuit Court pursuant to a de novo appeal. Although the prior owners now appeal to this Court to raise certain grievances, we affirm.

Appellant homeowner appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the purchaser bank in an unlawful detainer action. Because the homeowner presented specific evidence to show a genuine dispute of material fact as to the whether certain mandatory provisions of the deed of trust were complied with prior to foreclosure, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Joseph Marshall asked a district court to terminate his supervised release ahead of schedule. The district court denied the request and Marshall appealed. Lacking jurisdiction to review the ruling, we dismiss the appeal.

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Before us is an appeal under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. Defendant Aaron Woods, currently serving a sentence for a revocation of his supervised release, challenges the district court’s decision denying him a sentence reduction. Woods argues that he is eligible for a reduction under the First Step Act and that the district court abused its discretion in denying one. Although eligible for consideration of a reduction, Woods is not entitled to one, so we therefore affirm.

This is an action to recover damages for a purported buyer’s breach of a contract to purchase improved residential real property. The trial court awarded Sellers damages calculated as the difference between the contract price and the amount for which the home sold one year after the breach. It also awarded Sellers and both realty companies prejudgment interest. On appeal, Appellant asserts the trial court erred in its determination of damages. He contends that, under the circumstances, an appraisal of the property performed at the time of breach demonstrates a substantially greater real market value than the sales price. Appellant also appeals the trial court’s calculation of the amount of prejudgment interest awarded to Sellers and the realty companies. Because the trial court made no findings of fact with respect to the fair market value of the property at the time of breach, we remand this matter for further findings and, if necessary, recalculation of the damages and prejudgment interest awarded to Sellers. We also remand this matter to the trial court to recalculate the amount of prejudgment interest to be awarded to the realty companies.

This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her two minor children. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the statutory ground of the persistence of conditions which led to removal. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the children. We affirm the trial court.

This appeal arises from the decision of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Electric Power Board to terminate a Nashville Electric Service (“NES”) cable splicer/working foreman. The foreman allegedly approved fraudulent timesheets for a Metropolitan Nashville Police Department officer, who performed traffic control at NES jobsites for a private contractor. After NES preferred charges against the foreman and suspended him without pay, the board referred the matter to an administrative law judge (“the ALJ”) for adjudication. Following a two-day administrative hearing, the ALJ made numerous findings of fact and conclusions of law in a 55-page report. The ALJ found that the foreman’s job description did not include verifying the accuracy of the timesheets, NES had not trained the foreman on how to verify the accuracy of the timesheets, and a majority of the inaccurate timesheets could be explained by NES’s common practice of rounding up hours at the end of an officer’s shift. Although there was evidence that the officer overstated his hours, the ALJ found the evidence was insufficient to establish the foreman knowingly approved any false timesheets. Accordingly, the ALJ recommended that the charges of termination be denied and that the foreman be reinstated without back pay. After reviewing the ALJ’s report, the board rejected his recommendation and approved NES’s termination of the foreman. However, the board did not make its own findings of fact or express disagreement with the ALJ’s findings. After the foreman filed his petition for judicial review, the trial court reviewed the administrative record and heard arguments of counsel. In its final order, the trial court concluded that “NES’s lack of proof and the apparent acceptance of timeapproval practices combine here to demonstrate a lack of substantial and material evidence to uphold the Board’s decision to terminate.” Thus, the trial court reversed the board’s decision, adopted the ALJ’s Report in toto, and directed that the foreman “be reinstated, without backpay.” On appeal, the board contends the trial court applied incorrect principles of law and reweighed the evidence. We disagree. The Charter of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County requires the Electric Power Board to reduce its findings to writing when taking disciplinary action against an employee. In this case, the board rejected the recommendation of the ALJ without making alternative findings of fact to support or explain its reasoning. Thus, the only findings of fact, credibility determinations, and conclusions of law in the administrative record are those of the ALJ. Because the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial and material evidence, we conclude that NES failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the foreman knowingly approved false timesheets for the police officer. We also conclude that a reasoning mind could not have reached the same conclusion as the board under a proper application of the controlling legal principles. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Jeffrey McCoy, pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at $10,000 or more and three counts of burglary of a building other than a habitation. The trial court imposed a twelve-year effective sentence to be served consecutively to a previous sentence in South Carolina. The Petitioner appeals the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner maintains that the post-conviction court erred in finding that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. The State concedes error. After a review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for appointment of counsel and further proceedings consistent with the Post-Conviction Procedure Act.

The Defendant, Quinton Wilkins, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempt to commit second degree murder, a Class B felony; employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony; two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony; and reckless endangerment, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-12-101 (2018) (criminal attempt), 39-13-210 (2018) (second degree murder), 39-17-1324 (2014) (subsequently amended) (firearms possession), 39-13-102 (2018) (aggravated assault), 39-13-103 (2018) (reckless endangerment). After the appropriate merger, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to fifteen years for attempted second degree murder, seven years for the firearm conviction, and seven years for aggravated assault. The court ordered consecutive service, for an effective twenty-nine-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred by limiting his cross-examination of a State’s witness, and (3) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the Defendant’s demeanor. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In 1986, the Petitioner, Nicholas Todd Sutton, was convicted of the January 15, 1985 first degree murder of Carl Estep, which occurred while both were inmates at the Morgan County Regional Correctional Facility. At sentencing, the jury imposed the death penalty based upon the weight of three aggravating circumstances. The Petitioner’s conviction and death sentence were affirmed on appeal. State v. Sutton, 761 S.W.2d 763 (Tenn. 1988), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1031 (1990). The Petitioner unsuccessfully pursued post-conviction relief, the denial of which was affirmed by this court. Nicholas Todd Sutton v. State, No. 03C01-9702-CR-00067, 1999 WL 423005 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 25, 1999), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Dec. 20, 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1216 (2000). The Petitioner then unsuccessfully pursued federal habeas corpus relief, the denial of which was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Sutton v. Bell, 645 F.3d 752 (6th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 566 U.S. 933 (2012).

On June 8, 2016, the Petitioner filed a motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings, alleging that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2251 (2015), announced a new constitutional rule requiring retrospective application to reopen post-conviction proceedings that invalidates the prior violent felony aggravating circumstance in his case. See T.C.A. § 40-30- 117(a)(1) (2018). Based upon the post-conviction court’s finding that the Petitioner had stated a colorable claim, the Petitioner amended the post-conviction petition with additional claims. Id. §§ 40-30-106 (2018), -107 (2018), 117(b) (2018). Upon prehearing consideration, the post-conviction court summarily denied relief. Id. § 40-30- 109(a) (2018). The Petitioner now appeals from the post-conviction court’s order summarily denying relief on the amended post-conviction petition and argues that (1) the decision in Johnson invalidated the prior violent felony aggravating circumstance; (2) the post-conviction court’s summary denial following the amendment of the post-conviction petition was improper because (a) the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), invalidated the death sentence; (b) the Petitioner’s appearance in shackles before the jury at the original trial violated his due process rights; (c) the jury selection process produced a jury skewed in favor of a death sentence; (d) trial counsel rendered the ineffective assistance of counsel relative to the investigation and the presentation of evidence concerning the Petitioner’s mental health; (e) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct when placing the knives on trial counsel’s table within reach of the Petitioner and his codefendants, causing officers to “reach[] for their weapons” and trial counsel were ineffective for not seeking a mistrial based upon the display of the knives; (f) the Petitioner’s experience of mistreatment and unsafe conditions while incarcerated at Brushy Mountain State Prison and Morgan County Regional Correctional Facility violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; (g) the death sentence in this case was arbitrarily sought following the State’s offering a sentence of life imprisonment during pretrial plea negotiations; (h) the State’s reliance on a prior murder conviction that was committed when the Petitioner was eighteen years of age to establish the prior violent felony aggravating circumstance violated the Eighth Amendment; (3) the Assistant District Attorney General’s previous representation of the victim, Carl Estep, creates an actual conflict of interest and an appearance of impropriety requiring disqualification and a rehearing of the post-conviction proceedings; and (4) the cumulative errors render unconstitutional the imposition of the death penalty in this case. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.