COLE, Circuit Judge. Daniel Miller pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the government objected to United States Probation and Pretrial Services’ recommended offense level, arguing Miller’s prior convictions for Tennessee drug delivery were “controlled substance offenses” under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. But the district court rejected the government’s argument, reasoning our decision in United States v. Havis, 927 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (en banc), reconsideration denied 929 F.3d 317 (Mem.), controlled. Sitting en banc, we accepted the Havis parties’ agreement that “the least culpable conduct” proscribed by Tennessee’s drug delivery statute was “the attempted delivery of a controlled substance” and unanimously held that attempt crimes were not “controlled substance offenses” because they were omitted from the Guidelines’ text. Id. at 385, 387. Since then, however, we have repeatedly acknowledged that “the parties’ assumption in Havis was wrong.” United States v. Booker, 994 F.3d 591, 596 (6th Cir. 2021) (collecting cases). In this case, we clarify that the parties in Havis were mistaken about the scope of Tennessee’s drug delivery statute. Because our legal determinations cannot be dictated by parties’ stipulations, we evaluate the statute anew and conclude it is a controlled substance offense. Accordingly, we vacate Miller’s sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Dillon Burnett brought an Eighth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state-law claim for assault and battery, against Sergeant Josh Griffith, a Van Buren County corrections officer. The claim is based on Sergeant Griffith’s alleged use of excessive force while Burnett was in custody at the Van Buren County Jail.

The district court granted Sergeant Griffith’s motion for summary judgment. It concluded that, although the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to find that Sergeant Griffith had used excessive force in bringing Burnett under control, the sergeant was nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because he did not have fair warning that his actions were unconstitutional. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. More than a year and a half after final approval of third-round settlements in a billion-dollar multidistrict litigation, Financial Recovery Services, LLC (FRS), a company that manages and files claims on behalf of its insurer clients, moved to intervene. The district court denied FRS’s motion, finding FRS’s intervention untimely. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment. 

The Defendant, James Stanley Radzvilowicz, pled guilty in the Moore County Circuit Court to aggravated assault and was sentenced by the trial court to four years, six months, with eight months in confinement before release on supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for either judicial diversion or, in the alternative, full probation. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, James Theodore Menard, alias, was convicted by a jury of rape of a child, exhibition of pictures depicting sexual conduct harmful to a minor, and two distinct counts of aggravated sexual battery, for which he received an effective forty-two-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court committed plain error by allowing references to the victim’s forensic interview, as well as permitting remarks that the victim made allegations against the Defendant while at school; (2) the trial court committed reversible error by letting the State make improper comments during closing argument; and (3) the cumulative effect of these errors deprived him of a fair trial. Following our review, we affirm. However, we must remand for a clerical error in the judgment form for Count 3.

Petitioner, Corinio Pruitt, was convicted in 2008 of first degree felony murder and was sentenced to death. After Petitioner’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Tennessee Supreme Court on direct appeal, Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition. After an extensive evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, Petitioner raises the following claims for relief: 1) the post-conviction judge erred by failing to recuse himself; 2) Petitioner is ineligible for the death penalty due to his intellectual disability, and trial counsel were ineffective in their handling of Petitioner’s intellectual disability claim at trial1; 3) trial counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate and present additional mitigating evidence regarding Petitioner’s traumatic social history, mental health, and cognitive impairments; 4) the prosecutors abused their discretion by seeking the death penalty in this case, operated under a conflict of interest, and committed misconduct by exercising peremptory strikes against African-American jurors and making inappropriate statements and arguments, and trial counsel were ineffective for failing to raise appropriate objections to these issues; 5) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the course of voir dire, trial, closing argument, and jury instructions during the guilt phase; 6) the death penalty is unconstitutional and is a disproportionate sentence in this case; and 7) the cumulative effect of these errors rendered Petitioner’s trial fundamentally unfair. After a thorough examination of the briefs of the parties and amici curiae, the records of the post-conviction hearing and direct appeal, and the applicable law, this court affirms the judgment of the post-conviction court.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Sunless, Inc. sells tanning booths and accompanying spray tan solution under the “Mystic Tan” mark. Sunless claims that applying Mystic Tan solution in a Mystic Tan booth results in a “Mystic Tan Experience.” Palm Beach, Inc. owns and franchises a chain of tanning salons. It owns a number of Mystic Tan-branded booths, and it used to buy Mystic Tan-branded tanning solution to use in them. Indeed, it had no choice, because the Mystic Tan booths were designed to accept only Mystic Tan solution. But now Palm Beach has jury-rigged the booths so that they will operate with its own distinctly branded spray tan solution, unapproved by Sunless. Sunless sought a preliminary injunction under the Lanham Act, arguing that the jury-rigging is likely to confuse consumers into believing they are getting a genuine “Mystic Tan Experience” when they are not. The district court denied the motion on the ground that Sunless had failed to show, at this stage of the litigation, that consumers in Palm Beach’s salons would be confused. We affirm.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Captain David Russ shot and killed Randy Thomas Groom during a confrontation after Groom stole a prescription from a pharmacy. Groom’s estate sued Russ for using excessive force. The district court granted Russ qualified immunity. It reasoned that, although a reasonable jury could conclude that Groom did not pose a serious threat at the time of the shooting, precedent did not clearly establish the unlawfulness of Russ’s conduct. We reverse.

The Appellant, Eric Tyre Patton, was convicted in the Rutherford County Circuit Court of conspiracy to sell 150 grams or more of heroin and 300 grams or more of cocaine with at least one overt act occurring within a drug-free school zone (DFSZ) and possession of 300 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within a DFSZ. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from GPS tracking devices and wiretaps; that the trial court erred by not requiring the State to identify four confidential informants (CIs); that the trial court erred by admitting testimony about a prior bad act and by denying his motion for a mistrial; that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on witness credibility; that the State improperly withheld exculpatory information in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and that he is entitled to relief under cumulative error. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Emmanuel Deshawn Bowley, appeals from the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from drug- and weaponrelated convictions, for which he is serving an effective sixteen-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that (1) the post-conviction court erred in denying relief based upon his ineffective assistance of counsel claims related to trial counsel’s performance in the appeal of the convictions and (2) he is entitled to post-conviction relief due to the existence of multiple instances of ineffective assistance of counsel in the appeal of the convictions. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.