Wilson Manuel Rondon Antonio, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision denying his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He moves to stay his removal pending our decision on the merits of his petition. The government opposes a stay. We previously granted an administrative stay pending receipt and full consideration of the administrative record.

Accordingly, the motion for a stay of removal is GRANTED.

The Defendant, Jeffrey Lee Potts, appeals his jury conviction for attempted second-degree murder, for which he received a Range I sentence of twelve years’ incarceration. In this direct appeal, the Defendant alleges that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred by prohibiting the defense expert from testifying about the reasoning and science upon which he based his opinion of the Defendant’s mental condition at the time of shooting; (3) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial after the trial court stated in the jury’s presence that defense counsel could “rehabilitate” and “clean up” the expert’s testimony; and (4) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant, both in imposing the maximum sentence, as well as in imposing a sentence of continuous confinement. Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The pro se petitioner, Sedrick Darion Mitchell, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. Following our review, we affirm the postconviction court’s denial of the petition.

The Defendant, Lesa Annette White McCulloch, appeals her convictions for one count of initiating the manufacture of methamphetamine, three counts of simple possession of a controlled substance, one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, and one count of possession of unlawful drug paraphernalia, and her resulting sixteen-year sentence. The Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the search of the Defendant’s home; (2) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion to dismiss for the State’s failure to preserve material evidence and by declining to issue a special jury instruction; (3) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of facilitation of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell; (4) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the Defendant’s prior bad acts; (5) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments by commenting on the Defendant’s intelligence; (6) the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions; and (7) the trial court erred in determining her sentencing range and by ordering partial consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm; however, we remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment in Count 1 due to a clerical error.

During a time when the Tennessee judicial system was grappling with the lingering effects of COVID-19, a Knox County jury convicted Defendant, Neal Scott Daniels, of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”); driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of 0.08 percent (“DUI per se”); simple possession of marijuana; driving on a revoked license; failing to provide evidence of financial responsibility; DUI per se fourth offense; and DUI by impairment fourth offense. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of two years to be suspended to four years on supervised probation after serving 150 days in jail. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that: 1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to continue on the grounds that courtroom procedures implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic interfered with his right to a fair trial; 2) his right to confrontation was denied when he was made to wear a face mask during trial; 3) his right to the effective assistance of counsel was denied by requiring trial counsel and jurors to wear masks; 4) the trial court erred by admitting the results of his blood alcohol test because a valid chain of custody was not established; 5) the judgments of conviction in counts 6 and 7 are invalid because the indictment failed to include the dates of Defendant’s prior convictions; and 6) there was insufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction for simple possession of marijuana. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this divorce action, the husband contends that the trial court erred by: (1) declining to award him alimony; (2) declining to adopt his valuation of the couple’s three Subway franchises; (3) finding that he dissipated $65,000 from the marital estate; (4) awarding the wife a larger share of the marital estate; (5) imputing income of $58,000 to him for child support purposes; and (6) declining to award him his attorney’s fees at trial. We affirm the trial court’s rulings on all but one of these issues, finding that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s determination regarding the amount of marital assets the husband dissipated. We also deny the husband’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal.

This appeal concerns a divorce. Melanie Miller Hollis (“Wife”) sued Charles Myers Hollis, Jr. (“Husband”) for divorce in the Chancery Court for Bradley County (“the Trial Court”). After a trial, the Trial Court granted Husband a divorce based upon Wife’s inappropriate marital conduct. The Trial Court also divided the marital estate and awarded Wife alimony and child support. Wife appeals, arguing that the Trial Court erred by failing to classify and value as part of the marital estate Husband’s “book of business” from his job as a financial advisor at UBS, a financial services firm. Husband raises separate issues regarding child support, alimony, and the division of the marital estate. Discerning no abuse of discretion or other reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety. We also remand for the Trial Court to determine and enter an award to Wife of her reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal, but only as they relate to issues of child support and alimony.

The employee, a machine operator, reported experiencing left knee pain when he missed a step and fell backward while climbing a metal ladder attached to a machine. The employer accepted the compensability of the claim and initiated medical benefits, although it did not offer the employee a proper panel of physicians. After extensive conservative treatment and surgery did not resolve the employee’s continued symptoms, the treating physician recommended a total knee replacement. The employer scheduled a medical evaluation with a different orthopedic physician, who opined that the need for the surgery was primarily related to a congenital condition and preexisting arthritic changes. In response, the treating physician opined that the work accident aggravated the employee’s preexisting condition and was more than fifty percent the cause of the need for the surgery. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court ordered the employer to authorize the surgery as recommended by the treating physician, and the employer appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

Following a bench trial, the defendant, Mark Christopher Beasley, was convicted in Case Number 20CR4 of two counts of violation of the conditions of community supervision for life; two counts of failure to appear; and one count of violation of the sexual offender registry and, in Case Number 21CR4, of two counts of violation of the conditions of community supervision for life; one count of tampering with, removing, or vandalizing a tracking device; and one count of tampering with evidence. The trial court imposed effective sentences of one year and four years, respectively, to be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of five years. On appeal, the defendant asserts the proof is insufficient to sustain his conviction for tampering with evidence in Case Number 21CR4 and, in the alternative, his convictions for tampering with evidence and tampering with, removing, or vandalizing a tracking device violate principles of double jeopardy. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Following a 2015 burglary and fire at the House of Blues music studio in Memphis, Tennessee, a jury awarded $2.5 million to defendant John Falls pursuant to his insurance policy with plaintiff Hanover American Insurance Company. Despite that judgment in Falls’s favor, the parties continue to fight over whether Falls is entitled to that entire award. Falls filed suit against defendants Christopher Brown and Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment, LLC (TME) in Tennessee state court, and Hanover filed an interpleader action against Brown, TME, and Falls in federal court. Hanover then moved the federal district court to enjoin Falls’s state-court proceeding. The court granted the injunction, concluding that doing so was “necessary in aid of its jurisdiction” under the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. We disagree and reverse.