This appeal involves a reimbursement limitation that TennCare imposed on “non- emergent” medical services provided by emergency department physicians. TennCare informed its managed care organizations of the reimbursement limitation via email without engaging in rule-making procedures outlined in the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (“UAPA”). The trial court concluded the reimbursement limitation was a “rule” subject to the rule-making requirements of the UAPA and invalidated the reimbursement limitation. We hold that the reimbursement limitation falls within the internal management exception of the 2009 version of the UAPA and was therefore not subject to the UAPA’s rule-making requirements. The ruling of the trial court is reversed.

Because the order appealed from does not constitute a final judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The court having received petitions for initial hearing en banc, and the petitions having been circulated to all active judges of this court, and less than a majority of the active judges of this court having voted in favor of initial hearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the petitions be, and hereby are, DENIED.

This appeal involves the sufficiency of a notice of appeal that arose out of one of two actions that were consolidated at the trial court. Plaintiff listed only one of the case numbers from the consolidated cases in his notice of appeal. Because he articulates no issues stemming from the dismissal of the case number he designated, we dismiss this appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial court. The cause is remanded for calculation of the attorney’s fees incurred by the defendants in defending this appeal.

The Defendant, Sidney Eugene Watkins, was convicted by a jury of alternative counts of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver and possession of a firearm during the commission of those dangerous felonies, as well as simple possession of methamphetamine, simple possession of alprazolam, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Following the jury verdict, the Defendant renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal regarding the two firearm convictions (counts 7 and 8). The trial court granted the Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the firearm counts, finding the evidence insufficient to support those convictions. The State appeals. Because we conclude that a reasonable jury could have found all of the necessary elements of the crime of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, we reverse the trial court’s decision to grant the Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal and reinstate the convictions for those counts. We remand to the trial court for sentencing on those counts, as well as for correction of the judgment form in count 13 for the reasons stated in this opinion.

Petitioner, Kimberly Ann Scott, appeals the summary dismissal of her pro se petition for post-conviction relief. She argues that her petition alleges a colorable claim for relief and that therefore, the post-conviction court erred by dismissing the petition without appointment of counsel or an evidentiary hearing. The State concedes that the post- conviction court erred by summarily dismissing the petition. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand the case for further proceedings.

Defendant, Treadence Lee Howard, pled guilty to possession of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell and was sentenced to nine years, suspended to supervised probation after service of one year in confinement. Following a hearing on a probation violation warrant based on Defendant’s arrest for attempted first-degree murder, reckless endangerment, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of the nine-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in fully revoking his probation. In a separate case, Defendant was found guilty following a jury trial of facilitation of the sale of cocaine in an amount of 0.5 grams or more within 1,000 feet of a park and was sentenced as a Range II offender to eight years and six months in the Tennessee Department of Correction, to be served consecutively. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting the guilty plea of a co-defendant at trial and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A petitioner in a divorce case moved to recuse the trial judge. The trial judge denied the motion, and this accelerated interlocutory appeal followed. Because the petition for recusal appeal fails to comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we dismiss the appeal.

In this termination of parental rights case, Father/Appellant appeals the termination of his parental rights to the minor child on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to visit, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1), 36-1-102(1)(A)(i); (2) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14); and (3) grounds applicable only to putative fathers, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(9). Father/Appellant also appeals the trial court determination that termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this action filed against the State of Tennessee (“the State”), alleging negligence by employees of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”), the Claims Commission (“the Commission”) dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Determining that subject matter jurisdiction existed in the Commission, we vacate the Commission’s order and remand this matter to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.