CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. For those who enjoy unsettled legal questions, who would not welcome the opportunity to navigate a labyrinth of ancient equitable doctrines nested within a federal statute, with little precedent to inform that review? All of that is presented in this appeal. Add to that the amici participation of a federal agency, and the table seemingly is set for a jurisprudential feast. But resolution of those issues must remain on ice, so to speak, because they were not preserved for appellate review. On that basis, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. David McCall, who pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge involving heroin possession and distribution in 2015, moved for compassionate release. He cited three “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” warranting his release: the COVID-19 pandemic, his rehabilitation efforts, and the fact that, under this court’s decision in United States v. Havis, he would have received a much shorter sentence. The district court acted as if it could not consider these factors, either alone or in tandem. Because our binding precedent says otherwise, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Following a bench trial, Defendant, Leavy L. Johnson, was convicted of rape, and the trial court sentenced him to eight years in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court committed plain error by admitting hearsay, that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction, and that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Donald Johnson, pled guilty to three counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and three counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-504, -13-522. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of eighty years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences and that the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Joshua Hill-Williams, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Joshua Hill-Williams, No. W2015- 01743-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 1907735, at *8 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 9, 2017), perm. app. denied (Aug. 18, 2017). Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief and an amended petition through counsel, alleging nine claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief and Petitioner now appeals. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employer filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure after the employee requested a second expedited hearing without presenting any additional evidence that would alter the outcome of the previous hearing. The trial court denied the motion for sanctions in a single sentence without addressing its reasons for denying the motion. The employer has appealed, asserting the trial court abused its discretion in declining to award sanctions and in failing to provide the reasons for its ruling. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

The Petitioner, Tony Light, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2017 guilty plea to attempted robbery, for which he received a four-year sentence as a Range I offender. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief because his guilty plea was involuntarily and unknowingly entered. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Clayton Hall and Gregory Franklin, II were convicted by a jury for engaging in a drug-trafficking conspiracy. The district court then sentenced each of them to a 360-month term of imprisonment. They collectively raise six issues on appeal, ranging from Hall’s challenge to the composition of the jury to the sufficiency of the evidence against Franklin. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that none of the claims have merit. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

The Defendant, Demontez D. Watkins, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder; two counts of attempted first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony; second degree murder, a Class A felony; attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; and two counts of employing a firearm in the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202(a)(2) (2018) (first degree murder), 39-13-210 (2014) (subsequently amended) (second degree murder); 39-13-403 (2018) (especially aggravated robbery); 39-17-1324(b)(1), (2) (2018) (employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony); 39-12-101 (2018) (criminal attempt). The trial court merged the first degree felony murder and second degree murder convictions and imposed an effective sentence of life plus twenty-seven years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding probabilistic genotyping regarding DNA evidence, (3) the court erred in denying his motion to suppress his pretrial statement, (4) the court erred in admitting evidence because the chain of custody was not adequately shown, and (5) the court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, John Bradford Underwood III, was convicted by a Bradley County Criminal Court jury of possession of contraband in a penal facility, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. § 39-16-201 (2018) (subsequently amended). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal, and (3) the trial court erred by admitting an expert report identifying the contraband. Although we affirm the Defendant’s conviction, we remand for the entry of a corrected judgment reflecting the conviction offense as possession of contraband in a penal facility.