The petitioner, Darryl Claxton, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his 2015 Shelby County Criminal Court Jury conviction of first degree murder, arguing that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm.

George Ellis Clark, Petitioner, sought post-conviction relief on the basis that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose a sentence because of a violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”).1 The post-conviction court dismissed the petition on the basis that the IAD provided a statutory right, not a constitutional right and, therefore, not a proper basis for post-conviction relief. Petitioner appealed. Because Petitioner has failed to present an adequate record for this Court’s review, we dismiss the appeal.

The petitioner, Cortez Bennett, appeals the summary denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which petition challenged his Lake County Circuit Court Jury convictions of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery, arguing that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief on grounds that the sentence imposed for his conviction of first degree murder was imposed in direct contravention of a statute, that the count alleging attempted first degree murder was void, and that his convictions of especially aggravated robbery violate double jeopardy principles. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Husband appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition to hold Wife in contempt. Because Husband’s brief is not compliant with Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal.

The employee reported experiencing head, neck, shoulder, and back injuries when a truck door struck him. The employer accepted the compensability of the accident and authorized certain medical treatment. Following a layoff, the employee began working for a different company. Thereafter, the employee sought additional medical care, but a dispute arose regarding whether medical treatment for the employee’s cervical spine and shoulders arose primarily from the work accident. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court determined the employee had not come forward with sufficient evidence to support his claim for additional medical benefits, and the employee appealed. After careful consideration of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

Alina F. Sherlin, Petitioner, was indicted for first degree murder in 2013. After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 15 years in incarceration. Her conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on appeal. State v. Alina Frankie Sherlin, No E2017-01225-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 3561728, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 24, 2018), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Dec. 7, 2018). Petitioner sought postconviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel and also challenged the search and seizure of her property. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner appealed to this Court. After a review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

Petitioner, John A. Purcell, appeals the dismissal of his post-conviction petition for being untimely filed. On appeal, he asserts that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel before entering his guilty plea and that the post-conviction court erred by not conducting a complete evidentiary hearing before dismissing his petition as untimely. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. A federal court is empowered to adjudicate the rights of the parties before it—with the salient constraint that it must have personal jurisdiction over each party. After forming a contract, 24 Capital, LLC (“24 Capital”) believed Peters Broadcast Engineering, Inc. (“Peters Broadcast”) breached their agreement. 24 Capital received a judgment by confession in New York state court. Then Peters Broadcast brought this suit in the Southern District of Ohio, alleging that 24 Capital and its Operations Manager, Jason Sankov, engaged in a scheme in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Peters Broadcast appeals, arguing the district court erred in interpreting the RICO provision authorizing nationwide exercise of personal jurisdiction in certain circumstances. We affirm, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 1965(b) governs service over out-of-district defendants and requires that at least one defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Under ERISA, short for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, those who invest other peoples’ retirement money must do so “with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence” that a reasonable professional in the area would use. 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B). At issue in this case are the various ways in which the duty of prudence applies to the investment options that a company offers to its employees for their 401(k) and other defined-contribution plans. Precedent has overtaken some of the debates in the case. Our recent decision in CommonSpirit largely resolves several of the plaintiffs’ claims: that their employer TriHealth should not have offered its employees the option of investing their retirement money in actively managed funds, that the performance of several funds was deficient at certain points, and that the overall fees charged for the investment options were too high. But the complaint contains one other claim not covered by CommonSpirit. The gist of it is this: Even if a prudent investor might make available a wide range of valid investment decisions in a given year, only an imprudent financier would offer a more expensive share when he could offer a functionally identical share for less. The plaintiffs claim that TriHealth offered them more expensive mutual fund shares when shares with the same investment strategy, the same management team, and the same investments were available to their retirement plan at lower costs. Because the plaintiffs in this last respect have stated a plausible claim that TriHealth acted imprudently, we affirm in part and reverse in part the district court’s dismissal of their complaint for failure to state a claim.

The Defendant, Ida Veronica Thomas, pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at $60,000 or more, but less than $250,000 and, pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve twelve years on community corrections. At a subsequent restitution hearing, the trial court imposed a restitution amount of $151,385, to be paid at a rate of $75 per month. The Defendant appealed, and this court affirmed the case in part, but remanded the case for the trial court to order a presentence report and determine the restitution amount, distinct from the pecuniary loss, by considering the Defendant’s financial resources and ability to pay. State v. Ida Veronica Thomas, No. M2019-02137-CCA-R3- CD, 2021 WL 286736, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Jan. 28, 2021). On remand, the trial court ordered a restitution amount of $92,225 to be paid monthly according to a graduated payment schedule. The Defendant now appeals from the trial court’s order of restitution. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.