Kevin Lee Waggoner (“Petitioner”) filed an action in the Chancery Court for Davidson County on April 30, 2021, pursuant to the Tennessee Public Records Act (the “Act”). Petitioner sought the audio recordings from his criminal trial held several years earlier in Union County. The trial court held that the clerk of the criminal court in which Petitioner’s trial was held was not required by statute to store the recordings as part of the clerk’s case records. The trial court also held that the audio recordings were exempt from disclosure under the Act pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 34. We reverse the trial court’s decision as to both issues and remand for further proceedings.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion for disqualification of the trial judge. After carefully reviewing the record provided by the parties, we affirm the decision of the trial court denying the motion.

This case involves a custody dispute between a biological father and the maternal grandparents of two children. The children at issue were placed in the temporary custody of their maternal grandparents while the children’s parents were in the midst of a divorce and were dealing with addiction issues. Father petitioned the court to regain full custody of the children. Ultimately, the court named maternal grandparents primary residential parents and provided father with 54 days of parenting time per year. Because the orders granting custody to the maternal grandparents were temporary, the chancery court should have applied the superior parental rights doctrine, rather than a material change in circumstances, when making its custody decision with respect to the father. Because the chancery court applied an incorrect legal standard when analyzing the case, we reverse the chancery court’s order and remand the case for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

A meeting between siblings about their deceased mother’s estate went awry. As a result of the meeting, one sister, and her spouse, sought a protective order against the sister’s brother. After a hearing, the trial court granted the protective orders. We affirm.

This appeal involves several consolidated lawsuits that were filed by insurance companies concerning a wildfire that occurred in Sevier County on November 28, 2016. The insurance companies alleged that the fire was sparked by dead or diseased trees falling on or striking electrical lines and that the fire quickly spread to neighboring properties, including properties owned by their insureds. The insurance companies urged that the defendant vegetation management contractor should be held liable for the losses for failing to prune or remove the diseased trees before they contacted the power lines. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the vegetation management contractor, determining, inter alia, that the contractor owed no duty to inspect or remove trees that were located outside the right of way that the contractor had agreed to maintain. The insurance companies have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the vegetation management contractor.

A Knox County jury convicted the defendant, William Scott Warwick, of three counts of assault by offensive or provocative touching, a Class B misdemeanor, and three counts of sexual contact with a minor by an authority figure, a Class A misdemeanor. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of 2 years, 11 months, and 27 days at 75 percent, suspended to supervised probation after serving 90 days in confinement. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in imposing split confinement. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This appeal is the latest installment in a decade-long dispute over the way in which the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) clears trees in the rights-of-way it holds on the plaintiffs’ private property. The district court enjoined TVA from practicing a particular tree-clearance practice, referred to as the “15-foot rule,” until TVA prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. At issue here is the district court’s dissolution of that injunction, which was based in part on the court’s finding that TVA complied with the injunction by completing an EIS and, in the alternative, on equitable grounds because the new TVA policy adopted following completion of the EIS is different from the 15-foot rule. The injunction should not have been dissolved, however, because the district court has not yet determined, in light of the administrative record, whether TVA took a hard look at the environmental consequences of its action, and the agency’s action has not been shown to be so different from the 15-foot rule as to warrant a whole new suit to obtain judicial review.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Product Solutions International, Inc. (“PSI”) appeals the dismissal of its complaint against Aldez Containers, LLC (“Aldez”). PSI sued Aldez and associated parties in 2019 alleging various claims arising from a contract dispute. The district court dismissed Aldez from that suit because PSI failed to state a claim against Aldez. In 2021, PSI filed a second complaint solely against Aldez for the same conduct as the 2019 suit. The district court held that the 2021 suit was barred by res judicata. We AFFIRM for the reasons set forth below.

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Defendant Liviu-Sorin Nedelcu pleaded guilty to RICO conspiracy. At sentencing, the district court increased his offense level based on the section of the Sentencing Guidelines that applies to money-laundering convictions. Nedelcu contends that this was an erroneous application because he was not convicted of money laundering. We disagree. Because the factual basis for Nedelcu’s plea agreement specifically established that he committed money laundering as a predicate for his RICO conviction, the Guidelines compelled the district court to sentence him “as if” he had been convicted of money laundering. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted petitioner Odraye Jones of capital murder. During the penalty phase, Jones’s counsel presented testimony from a clinical psychologist who diagnosed Jones with Antisocial Personality Disorder. The psychologist testified that Black men with this disorder (including Jones) would commit more murders—he claimed that about one in four “African-American urban males” suffered from the disorder, and the only treatment for them was to “throw them away, lock them up.” After hearing this testimony, the jury recommended the death penalty. The court accepted the recommendation and sentenced Jones to death.

But after that argument, we issued a separate certificate of appealability for an additional issue: whether Jones received ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase because his attorneys failed to prepare expert witnesses properly, as shown by the psychologist’s racialized testimony. We hold that this issue is not procedurally defaulted, and that on our de novo review of the merits, trial counsel performed ineffectively by presenting racialized evidence during the penalty phase. Jones is entitled to a new sentencing. Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court with instructions to issue a writ of habeas corpus vacating Jones’s death sentence unless the State of Ohio conducts a new penalty phase proceeding within 180 days of remand.