JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Defendant Emanuele Palma was indicted for several crimes, including conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The indictment alleges that Palma and others conspired to falsify test results for a new diesel engine and market these engines as environmentally friendly, meeting regulatory standards, and “best-in-class” compared with other diesel engines. The district court dismissed this count since, in its view, the property loss by consumers was too far removed from the falsified test results, which, the court reasoned, were meant to deceive regulators. Because Palma is only charged with conspiracy, not wire fraud itself, and because the indictment alleges adequate facts tying Palma to a fraudulent scheme, we REVERSE.

The Petitioner-Appellant, Aaron Dodson, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions of first-degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated kidnapping. The Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the post-conviction court erred in limiting proof at the post-conviction hearing to only alleged errors of trial counsel.1 After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In February of 2021, Defendant, Clinton D. Braden, pleaded guilty to burglary and identity theft. In exchange, he received a total effective sentence of 16 years suspended to community corrections. On May 4, 2022, Defendant admitted he again violated the terms of his community corrections program and offered no proof for the trial court to make findings of what consequences to apply. Defendant now appeals, and we affirm, the trial court’s judgment to impose his original sentence to serve in full.

Defendants appeal from the denial of their effort to invalidate a 2017 judgment on the basis that the trial judge harbored animosity against them at the time the judgment was rendered. Because these allegations were adjudicated in an earlier Rule 60.02 action, we conclude that res judicata bars the instant effort for relief from the judgment.

For the week of January 9, 2023 - January 13, 2023

The petitioner, Joshua E. Webb, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and aggravated robbery, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Aaron Loines appeals the district court’s denial of his pretrial motion to suppress preceding his guilty plea to controlled substance offenses in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C); and a firearm offense in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 924(c)(1)(A). For the reasons set forth below, the Court REVERSES the district court’s denial of Loines’ motion to suppress, VACATES his conviction, and REMANDS the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Miranda Cheatham, Defendant, was convicted of second degree murder for the shooting death of her husband on Halloween of 2016. As a result of the conviction, she was sentenced to 18 years in incarceration. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant raises a variety of issues on appeal. On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; (2) the evidence supported Defendant’s claim of self- defense; (3) the “crime scene negligence” entitles Defendant to a new trial; (4) the “investigative negligence” by the State entitles Defendant to a new trial; (5) the State mislabeled evidence presented to the grand jury; (6) the State failed to disclose evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland; (7) the trial court permitted improper testimony from more than one witness; (8) the State committed a discovery violation for failing to disclose an audio recording; and (9) cumulative error. After a review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves an action filed against a funeral home and a cemetery for alleged mishandling of a dead human body. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the funeral home as to the claims against the funeral home only. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

This appeal involves a failure to timely move for substitution of parties after the death of one of the two plaintiffs. In a previous appeal, this Court directed the trial court, on remand, to determine whether the plaintiff’s response to a motion to dismiss should be construed as a motion for enlargement of time pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.02, and if so, to determine whether the plaintiff’s failure to timely move for substitution of the parties pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 25.01 was the result of excusable neglect. On remand, the trial court determined that the plaintiff’s filing should be construed as a motion for an enlargement of time. However, the trial court also found that the plaintiff failed to timely move for substitution due to counsel’s misinterpretation of the law, which, the trial court concluded, did not constitute excusable neglect. As such, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to timely substitute parties. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.