This appeal involves a finding of civil contempt pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-9-104 for Husband’s failure to adhere to an alimony provision in a marital dissolution agreement incorporated in a final decree of divorce. The trial court awarded Wife attorney’s fees and expenses associated with the enforcement of the alimony provision in the marital dissolution agreement and finding of civil contempt pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-9-104 and 36-5-103(c). Husband appeals. We affirm and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The employee’s surviving spouse challenges the trial court’s decision denying his request to order the employer to pay death benefits and attorneys’ fees in a lump sum. The surviving spouse additionally challenges the trial court’s denial of his counsels’ request for an attorneys’ fee on the burial expenses paid by the employer. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision denying the surviving spouse’s request to commute the death benefits to a single lump sum and denying the award of attorney’s fees in a single lump sum. We also affirm the trial court’s denial of an award of attorneys’ fees on the burial expenses paid by the employer. Finally, we certify the trial court’s order as final.

The Appellant, the State of Tennessee, appeals the Cocke County Circuit Court order granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss his indictment. On appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the indictment “in the interest of justice.” Upon review, we remand for entry of corrected judgments but otherwise affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the indictment.

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Who among us has not been disappointed with the Postal Service when our mail was not delivered? But leave it to the good people of Glennborough, a neighborhood located in Washtenaw County, Michigan to bring a federal lawsuit challenging the successful delivery of their mail.

By way of background, for more than two decades, Glennborough’s developers and homeowners have sought to change the subdivision’s Zone Improvement Plan Code, better known as a “ZIP Code.” This effort included various pleas to the United States Postal Service, two rounds of litigation, and one settlement. In today’s installment of this long-running endeavor, the Glennborough Homeowners Association contends that the Postal Service breached a consent judgment entered as part of the earlier settlement by allowing mail addressed to “Ypsilanti” (rather than “Superior Township” or “Ann Arbor,” two other communities in Washtenaw County) to be delivered to Glennborough. The relief the Association seeks is to alter Glennborough’s ZIP Code. But the consent judgment did not address that issue. Because the Association’s complaint fails to allege why it has standing to pursue a claim for that manner of relief, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint.

A Davidson County grand jury indicted the defendants, Jalean Robert Williams and Markeil Linskey Williams, for one count of premeditated first-degree murder and one count of felony murder. Per a negotiated plea agreement, the defendants pled guilty to one count of second-degree murder for which they each received a sentence of thirty years to be served at 100%. The defendants also agreed to have the trial court determine whether their sentence in the instant matter would be served concurrently or consecutively to a sentence of life in prison plus fourteen years they were currently serving in Case No. 2017- A-296. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed consecutive terms. On appeal, the defendants contend the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive terms. After a thorough review of the record, the applicable law, and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Antonio Dewayne Sivels, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2017 conviction upon his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, for which he received a twenty-year sentence as a Range I offender. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred by summarily dismissing the petition after determining it was untimely. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Putnam County jury convicted the defendant, Martin Riley, III, of felony evading arrest in a motor vehicle, a Class D felony, and the trial court imposed a twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the statutory defense available under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-603(b)(2). After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Christopher Orlando Lyles, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as time barred, which petition challenged his 2016 convictions of first degree felony murder, second degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, attempted aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The petitioner, Ronald David Harris, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel in conjunction with his guilty pleas. Following our review, we affirm the post- conviction court’s denial of the petition.

This is a civil action by a widow against her deceased husband’s daughter to set aside a 2013 warranty deed pursuant to which the husband conveyed his childhood home to his adult children from a previous marriage. The real property, located in Putnam County, Tennessee, was acquired by the decedent in 1972, fourteen years prior to the marriage to his widow. In this action against the decedent’s only surviving issue, his daughter, the widow sought to, inter alia, establish a constructive or resulting trust and set aside the deed as a fraudulent conveyance pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 31-1-105. The widow asserted that the conveyance was made fraudulently with an intent to defeat or reduce her claim for a distributive share of his net estate. Upon the motion of the decedent’s daughter, the trial court summarily dismissed all of the widow’s claims. This appeal followed. We affirm.