The Petitioner, Yasin Solomon Hawkins, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his waiver of the right to a jury trial was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

This appeal concerns an ATV (all-terrain vehicle) accident. Sam Vaulton, a minor, by his parents, next friends and natural guardians, Barry Vaulton and Joy Vaulton, and Barry Vaulton and Joy Vaulton, individually (“Plaintiffs,” collectively) sued Polaris Industries, Inc. (“Polaris”) and Ritchie Power Sports, LLC (“Ritchie”) (“Defendants,” collectively) in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County (“the Trial Court”) for injuries Sam Vaulton received from the winch on his ATV (called “The General”). The General was manufactured by Polaris and sold by Ritchie. Sam Vaulton lost his right index finger when he directed his friend to push the “out” button on the winch-controls while Sam Vaulton was holding the winch-hook and the cable went in rather than out. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which the Trial Court granted. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm the Trial Court’s conclusion that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs were provided an owner’s manual or safety instructions; the undisputed evidence shows they were provided. However, there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether a tether was attached to the winch-hook and whether the General’s winch was in a defective or unreasonably dangerous condition when it left Polaris’ control. We hold further that the Trial Court erred in concluding at this summary judgment stage that Polaris had no duty to attach a rubber stopper to the winch. We, therefore, reverse the Trial Court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The judgment of the Trial Court is thus affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part.

This appeal concerns the revocation of a criminal defendant’s probation. We granted Defendant’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether revocation proceedings are a one-step or two-step process on the part of the trial court and the appropriate appellate standard of review to be employed in reviewing such determinations. Defendant in this case pleaded guilty to theft of property over $1,000 but less than $10,000 and received a six-year sentence, which the trial court suspended to supervised probation. A series of revocation proceedings ensued. At Defendant’s fifth and final revocation hearing, the trial court fully revoked his probation. Defendant took issue with the consequence imposed for his probation violation; however, the Court of Criminal Appeals found no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court and affirmed its decision. Judge Timothy L. Easter filed a separate concurring opinion in which he emphasized his belief that a trial court, after it has determined probation should be revoked, is not statutorily required to hold an additional hearing or make any additional findings to determine the manner in which the original sentence should be served. We granted Defendant’s application for permission to appeal. While we do not agree with Defendant that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve the balance of his six-year sentence in prison, we do take this opportunity to clarify and bring uniformity to the standards and principles applied by the trial courts and appellate courts in probation revocation proceedings. We conclude that a probation revocation proceeding ultimately involves a two-step inquiry. A trial court, upon finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant violated the conditions of his or her probation, must determine (1) whether to revoke probation, and (2) the appropriate consequence to impose upon revocation. On appeal, the appellate court must review both decisions separately for abuse of discretion. More specifically, if the trial court has properly placed its findings on the record, the standard of review for probation revocations is abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness. Considering this Court’s prior opinions establishing the appellate standard of review of a trial court’s sentencing decisions, we expressly extend the same principles to appellate review of a trial court’s decision to revoke probation. Because we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in Defendant’s case, we affirm the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Pro-se petitioner, Joseph Smith, filed an untimely notice of appeal from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the interest of justice does not warrant a waiver of the notice requirement because Petitioner failed to state a colorable claim for relief. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal as untimely.

Defendant, Stevie Dean, was charged with one count of aggravated robbery. Following a trial, a jury convicted Defendant as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to twelve years’ incarceration with an eighty-five percent release eligibility. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Linda Moser claims that a police officer used excessive force on her when she was trying to tell another officer that he was arresting the wrong person. Her daughter, Johnnie Moser, had fled to a neighbor’s house one night after Johnnie Moser’s boyfriend physically assaulted Johnnie. Officers Tim Davis and Austin Parton were investigating at the neighbor’s house when Linda Moser approached, visibly upset and worried about the condition of her daughter. Parton observed Johnnie Moser’s boyfriend following behind Linda Moser and moved to arrest him. Linda Moser began shouting that Parton had the wrong man and touched Parton’s arm. At this point, Officer Davis stepped onto the porch, grabbed Linda Moser, took her to the ground, and then pinned her there, which resulted in a fractured hip and femur. Linda Moser brought this action against Davis and the City of Etowah. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Moser, however, Davis violated her clearly established right to be free from injury-threatening physical force when not actively resisting an arrest.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court with respect to Moser’s excessive-force claim. In addition, we reverse the judgment of the district court as to the municipal-liability claim because Moser has sufficiently alleged an underlying constitutional violation. We remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Several taxpayers complain about the Internal Revenue Service’s enforcement of an administrative regulation that requires them to report transactions involving cash-value life insurance policies connected to employee-benefit plans. The taxpayers claim that the IRS failed to meet a reporting requirement of its own by skipping the notice-and- comment process before promulgating this legislative rule. If individuals “must turn square corners when they deal with the government,” the taxpayers insist, “it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.” Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1486 (2021). We agree with the taxpayers and reverse the district court’s contrary decision.

RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge. Dr. Edward Hills, Dr. Sari Alqsous, and Dr. Yazan Al-Madani were convicted by a jury of various fraud and related offenses connected to their employment in the Dental Department of a publicly owned hospital located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Dr. Tariq Sayegh—who also was convicted of several bribery-related counts—has voluntarily dismissed his appeal. The three defendants before us challenge their convictions and sentences on various and, at times, overlapping grounds. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

The Defendant, Emily Leanne Brooks, entered an open guilty plea to second degree murder. Prior to sentencing, she obtained new counsel and filed a motion to withdraw her plea one week after it was entered. That motion, along with her subsequent motion to reconsider, was denied following the trial court’s balancing analysis of the factors set forth in State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 446 (Tenn. 2010), and its determination that the Defendant was not a credible witness. The Defendant was, thereafter, sentenced to twenty- one years. She appeals as of right, noting that she immediately sought to withdraw her plea and arguing (1) that the significance of her traumatic brain injury on her decision-making process was underappreciated by her prior attorneys and the trial court, and (2) that given her difficulties, she should have been allowed to speak with her parents who were present in the courtroom before being required to accept the take-it-or-leave plea deal that was presented that day. Following our review, we affirm.

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Jaycee Wamer appeals the dismissal of her suit against Defendant University of Toledo (“UT”) for deliberate indifference to sexual harassment by her instructor, in violation of Title IX. The district court granted UT’s motion to dismiss, applying the standards for deliberate indifference to student-on-student harassment laid out in Kollaritsch v. Michigan State University Board of Trustees, 944 F.3d 613 (6th Cir. 2019). Because we find that the Kollaritsch test is not applicable to claims of deliberate indifference to teacher-student sexual harassment, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.