GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. In this immigration case, Georgina Rizk and her daughter appeal the revocation of Rizk’s visa petition. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) initially granted the petition without taking into account a previous finding that Rizk had entered into a sham marriage, making her ineligible for a future visa pursuant to § 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c). Once USCIS discovered the error, it revoked Rizk’s visa petition and explained that it never should have granted the petition in the first place.

The defendant, Yodelkis Contreras, appeals from the revocation of the probationary sentence imposed for his 2005 Circuit Court guilty-pleaded conviction of aggravated robbery, claiming that, because the original sentence of probation was illegal, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his probation and that the delay between the issuance of the original probation violation warrant and the probation revocation hearing violated his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of the violation.

In this action brought under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, the plaintiff sought damages from the City of Cleveland for injuries received when she fell after tripping on a raised, cracked and uneven section of a public sidewalk. In pertinent part, the plaintiff alleged that the city’s immunity under the Act should be removed based on constructive notice because the city created the dangerous condition by planting trees along the sidewalk in the 1990s and roots from those trees caused the unsafe condition.

This action involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor child. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the statutory grounds of (1) failure to establish or exercise paternity; (2) severe child abuse; and (3) sentence of imprisonment for severe child abuse. The trial court also found that termination was in the best interest of the child. We affirm the trial court.

MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, CIRCUIT JUDGE. Petitioner Vincent White seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He argues that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel when, unbeknownst to him, his trial attorney, Javier Armengau, represented him while also under indictment for several serious offenses. White contends that this situation created potential and actual conflicts of interest that denied him the effective assistance of counsel.

MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Curtis Byrd seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Byrd is serving life in prison without the possibility of parole for aiding and abetting a first-degree felony murder, despite the fact that the prosecutor in his case was interested in—and, indeed, would have preferred—negotiating an agreement that could have allowed Byrd to plead guilty to a lesser charge and receive a lighter sentence. Byrd argues that his counsel’s ineffectiveness deprived him of the opportunity to secure a plea deal.

MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, CIRCUIT JUDGE. Petitioner Paula Bennett was convicted of aiding and abetting first-degree murder, in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.316(1)(a), for the shooting of Stephanie McClure, who was killed by Bennett’s then-boyfriend, Kyron Benson. Bennett is serving life in prison without the possibility of parole. She seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that her trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance.

Defendant, Curtis Logan Lawson, appeals from his Knox County convictions for burglary, theft of merchandise, and criminal trespass. Defendant argues that his burglary conviction should be dismissed because the burglary statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-402(a)(3), does not apply to buildings that are open to the public.

The petitioner, Antonio L. Fuller, appeals the dismissal of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in dismissing the petition as time-barred. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the petition.

This appeal involves a dispute related to the interpretation of a lease purchase agreement. However, because the trial court did not make sufficient findings of facts and conclusions of law, we are unable to conduct a meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand for further proceedings.