The employee, a truck driver, reported suffering a right ankle injury when he tripped and fell while unloading a roll of carpet. After returning to work, the employee reported another incident resulting in a “pop” in his ankle and a significant increase in his symptoms while walking. Following a compensation hearing, the trial court determined the second reported incident was a direct and natural consequence of the compensable work injury, and it found the employee to be permanently and totally disabled. It also denied the employee’s claim for additional temporary disability benefits and denied the employer’s claim based on an alleged overpayment of such benefits. The employer has appealed, arguing the second incident was an independent, intervening event not causally related to the employee’s compensable work accident. Upon careful consideration of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify it as final.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. On February 8, 2017, Defendant Deputy Matthew Johns (“Johns”), a deputy sheriff for Defendant Ashtabula County (collectively “Defendants”), shot and killed Vincent Palma (“Palma”), a mentally ill individual, while responding to a 9-1-1 call about a family dispute over a television remote. Palma’s family members (“Plaintiffs”) sued Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state tort laws. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on all claims. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Often described as an immigration “death sentence,” a finding that an immigrant “knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum” renders the immigrant “permanently ineligible for any benefits under” our immigration laws. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6); see, e.g., Yousif v. Lynch, 796 F.3d 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2015). Yet Congress understandably refused to impose this serious penalty on asylum seekers who file frivolous applications unless they receive adequate notice “of the consequences” of doing so. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(4)(A), (d)(6). To fulfill this notice mandate, the government has placed the required warning about filing a frivolous asylum application in the standard application form itself.

Takhir Khaytekov received this written warning, but immigration judges also routinely give another verbal warning in court. The judge in Khaytekov’s case did not give this secondary warning, and Khaytekov argues that the failure to do so violated § 1158(d)’s notice requirement. In an earlier opinion, we opted to reject Khaytekov’s claims for relief on narrower grounds that avoided this statutory question. But the Supreme Court has since remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), and we now must confront it. We see nothing in § 1158(d)’s text that requires the additional warning that Khaytekov requests. And we agree with every other circuit court that has considered the issue by concluding that the warning in the application form itself satisfies the statute’s notice requirement. Because Khaytekov does not dispute that he filed a frivolous asylum application, he is permanently barred from obtaining any immigration “benefits.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6). So our judgment remains the same after Niz-Chavez: we dismiss Khaytekov’s petition for review in part and deny it in part.

The defendant, Earlie M. Jones, pled guilty to burglary, shoplifting, subsequent offense driving on a revoked license, and evading arrest,1 resolving the charges against him in five separate indictments. As a result of his plea, he was sentenced to an effective term of four years’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his oral motion to withdraw his guilty pleas prior to imposition of the sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand the case for entry of corrected judgments in Count 1 of case number 28153 and Count 2 of case number 28152.

The Appellant, Martin Hubert White, pled guilty in the Giles County Circuit Court to aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and burglary of an automobile, a Class E felony, and received an effective three-year sentence suspended to time served and supervised probation. On appeal, the Appellant claims that the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion. Based upon our de novo review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, Randal Ledon Tate, was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to sell less than fifteen grams of heroin within 1,000 feet of a school (count 1), possession with intent to deliver less than fifteen grams of heroin within 1,000 feet of a school (count 2), simple possession of Alprazolam (“Xanax”) (count 3), possession with intent to deliver Xanax within 1000 feet of a school (count 4), driving without a license (count 5), criminal impersonation (count 6), violation of the financial responsibility law (count 7), violation of the registration law (count 8), and driving a motor vehicle without operational taillights. (count 9). The trial court merged count 2 into count 1 and count 3 into count 4 and imposed an effective fifteen-year sentence as a Range I offender to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues: that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for possession of Xanax and heroin with intent to sell or deliver; that the trial court erred by admitting text messages about prior drugs sales; and that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss based on an alleged Ferguson violation. After hearing oral arguments, and following a review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Christopher Demotto Linsey, appeals the denial of his petition for post- conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained from his cell phone, failing to object to evidence presented at trial, and failing to file a timely motion for new trial. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying relief.

This appeal involves an arbitration agreement executed in connection with a patient’s admission to a nursing home. The arbitration agreement was executed by the patient’s brother, who had been designated as the patient’s attorney-in-fact for health care pursuant to a durable power of attorney for health care executed by the patient several years earlier. When the patient’s brother filed this wrongful death suit in circuit court, the nursing home defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration. The patient’s brother then asserted that he did not have authority to bind the patient to the arbitration agreement because the patient had been mentally incompetent when he executed the durable power of attorney for health care years earlier. The defendants argued that the trial court was not permitted to “look beyond” the durable power of attorney for health care to determine the competency of the patient at the time of its execution. The trial court ruled that it would “look beyond” the power of attorney for health care in order to consider the patient’s competency and allowed the parties to engage in discovery related to the issue of incompetence. Discovery ensued, and the parties submitted additional evidence regarding the patient’s competency. The trial court then found by clear and convincing evidence that the patient was incompetent at the time the durable power of attorney for health care was executed. As a result, the trial court concluded that the patient’s brother lacked authority to sign the arbitration agreement as attorney-in-fact for health care. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, and the defendants appealed. Pursuant to the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in Owens v. National Health Corp., 263 S.W.3d 876 (Tenn. 2007), we hold that the trial court erred in looking beyond the durable power of attorney for health care to examine the patient’s competency at the time it was executed. We reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This appeal arises from a petition for divorce filed in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County (the “trial court”). Noblelynn Shelby Norris (“Wife”) was granted a divorce from Terry Jamar Norris (“Husband”) after a hearing held on September 30, 2019. The trial court named Wife primary residential parent of the parties’ minor son, set child support, and awarded Wife her attorney’s fees. Because the trial court has never awarded Wife a specific amount of attorney’s fees, however, the order appealed from is nonfinal and must be dismissed.

The defendant appeals the trial court’s judgment finding that he violated a reckless driving city ordinance, Metropolitan Code of Law § 12.68.180, when he drove 65 miles per hour in a 45-mile-per-hour zone. During trial, Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee (“Metro”) presented evidence regarding the defendant’s speed to support its allegation that the defendant was driving recklessly. Following proof of the defendant’s excessive speed, the trial court found that the defendant had failed to rebut the presumption created by ordinance that he was driving in such a way as to demonstrate “a wilful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.” The defendant challenges the constitutionality of such ordinance, which provides a rebuttable presumption that the defendant was driving recklessly when driving at least fifteen miles per hour over the speed limit. However, the defendant’s issues concerning constitutionality of the ordinance were not properly raised or decided by the trial court, and upon our determination that the ordinance is not facially unconstitutional, we hold that the defendant has waived his issues regarding the constitutionality of the ordinance. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment that the defendant violated Metropolitan Code of Law § 12.68.180.