Defendant, Shawn Casey Walker, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated cruelty to animals, a Class E felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of two years in confinement. On appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of an alternative sentence. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. In 2017, Linda Sexton was sexually assaulted while participating in a court-ordered work program. Thomas Cernuto and Larry Dunn supervised the program, and Sexton alleges that Cernuto actively sought to isolate her from other program participants to contribute to and enable Dunn to carry out the sexual assaults. Sexton and her husband, Michael Sexton, allege 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law claims against Cernuto for his actions. Cernuto brings this interlocutory appeal, arguing that the district court erred in denying his summary judgment motion for qualified immunity. We AFFIRM the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Cernuto.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. This litigation has had two chapters, so far. Chapter one grew out of a dispute between Volkswagen, a company based in Germany, and a group of companies based in Europe, called the Prevent Group, that specializes in turning around distressed automotive parts suppliers. The seeds of the dispute, from Volkswagen’s vantage point, arose when the Prevent Group organized an effort to halt supplies of their car parts in order to obtain better terms from Volkswagen, and Volkswagen responded by opting not to do business with the affiliated companies. From the Prevent Group’s vantage point, Volkswagen engineered a boycott of its companies and violated several German and European antitrust laws in the process. Begun in 2016, this litigation initially involved claims of unfair business practices and anticompetitive behavior under German and European law and was handled by a number of German trial and appellate courts. Volkswagen has prevailed in most of these suits, and one case is still pending before the Regional Court in Frankfurt.

Chapter two began in 2019 and was initiated by two members of the Prevent Group: Eastern Horizon Group, based in the Netherlands, and an American subsidiary (Prevent USA). The two of them sued Volkswagen and its American subsidiary in Michigan, alleging that the carmaker unfairly prevented them from acquiring distressed automotive-parts manufacturers. After determining that the Eastern Horizon Group and Prevent USA were trying to open another front on a dispute that should remain in Europe, the district court dismissed the complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens. Finding no errors of law or abuse of discretion in the district court’s weighing of the relevant factors, we affirm.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case has been litigated for over thirteen years. We have twice affirmed the district court’s certification of a collective action and the determination by the jury and court that FTS and UniTek are liable under the FLSA. We reversed only as to two errors in calculating damages for Plaintiffs’ piece- rate compensation and remanded for the sole purpose of recalculating damages without those errors. On remand, FTS and UniTek sought to raise a host of new attacks on the district court’s judgment that were unrelated to our limited instruction to recalculate the hourly rate and correct the multiplier used to calculate damages. Recognizing that our remand was limited, the district court barred FTS and UniTek from raising most of those arguments. The court then recalculated damages and entered judgment for all but one opt-in Plaintiff, Valon Harlan, finding a lack of sufficient evidence to calculate damages. Following entry of judgment, the district court also substantially granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s petition for attorney’s fees.

On appeal, FTS and UniTek assert that the district court erred in foreclosing its arguments, contending that our remand was general in nature and thus allowed the district court to consider the merits of their list of new claims. FTS and UniTek also argue that the district court abused its discretion in substantially granting attorney’s fees to Plaintiffs. We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment in all respects except as to its denial of judgment to Plaintiff Harlan, which we REVERSE and REMAND to the district court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Harlan.

RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Gene Howell of armed bank robbery, brandishing a firearm during the robbery, a separate attempted armed bank robbery, discharging a firearm during the attempted robbery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Howell now argues on appeal that the district court improperly: interfered with his right to testify; allowed the identification testimony of a bank teller; refused to bifurcate the felon- in-possession-of-a-firearm charge that was “vindictively added” sixteen months after the initial indictment; applied the base offense level for attempted first-degree murder; and imposed a two- level offense enhancement because a victim was “physically restrained.” Finding no reversible error, we AFFIRM.

This appeal concerns a denial of parole. Fred Austin Wortman, III (“Wortman”) pled guilty to two counts of attempted first degree murder and one count of solicitation of first degree murder, all stemming from Wortman’s repeated attempts to kill his wife. Wortman was sentenced to thirty years in prison. After a parole hearing, the Tennessee Board of Parole (“the Board”) denied Wortman parole due to the seriousness of his offenses and the substantial risk that he would not conform to the conditions of release. Wortman subsequently filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) challenging the Board’s decision. The Trial Court affirmed the Board’s decision. Wortman appeals to this Court raising a number of issues. We affirm the Trial Court.

The employee alleged he was the victim of an attempted robbery and suffers from post- traumatic stress disorder as a result. The employer contended the employee’s accounts of the event as given to various individuals, including the treating physician, were inconsistent, calling into question the employee’s credibility. As a result, the employer asserted that the authorized physician’s causation opinion, which necessarily relied on the employee’s subjective statements, is unreliable and should not be considered. Following an expedited hearing in which the employee sought additional medical benefits and temporary disability benefits, the trial court found that, while there were discrepancies in the employee’s accounts of the event, the discrepancies were insignificant or irrelevant and that the employee’s testimony was credible. The court noted that the record contained only one causation opinion, and, as a result, determined the employee would likely prevail at trial in establishing entitlement to additional medical benefits and temporary disability benefits. The employer has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.

Week of November 1, 2021 - November 5, 2021

BUSH, Circuit Judge. To combat the spread of COVID-19, the Ohio government ordered child-care programs in the state to shut down for around two months beginning in March 2020. As a result, Dakota Girls, LLC and its sixteen co-appellants (collectively, “Dakota Girls”) could not use their facilities for their intended purpose—as private preschools. The consequent lost profits gave rise to claims against their insurer, the Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Dakota Girls argued that the preschools’ identically worded policies contained four provisions—concerning (1) business and personal property, (2) business income, (3) civil-authority orders, and (4) communicable disease and water-borne pathogens—that provided coverage. Philadelphia disagreed, however, and denied the claims, so Dakota Girls filed suit. It sought damages for breach of contract and the insurer’s alleged bad faith. Yet the district court sided with Philadelphia and granted its motion to dismiss. Dakota Girls then took the present appeal. Soon after, we issued a decision squarely foreclosing coverage under the first three of the aforementioned provisions, a point Dakota Girls now concedes. See Santo’s Italian Café v. Acuity Ins. Co., 15 F.4th 398 (6th Cir. 2021). It thus confines this appeal to the fourth provision, concerning communicable disease and water-borne pathogens. But Dakota Girls’ arguments in favor of coverage fail under the plain language of the policies. So we affirm.

The Defendant, Louis Bernard Williams, III, was convicted of felony evidence tampering, a Class C felony, and three respective counts of simple possession of marijuana, cocaine, and hydrocodone, Class A misdemeanors. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-16-503, -17-408, -17-415, -17-418. On appeal, the pro se Defendant contends that (1) his residence was improperly searched because the search warrant listed the incorrect address; (2) the evidence obtained in that search should be retroactively suppressed because the Defendant was not convicted of the offense alleged in the search warrant; (3) the evidence should have been suppressed because the confidential informant referenced in the search warrant affidavit was not identified and did not testify at trial; and (4) the trial court should have recused itself due to showing bias against the Defendant by denying his motion to suppress and the court’s imposition of an incorrect release eligibility in two previous cases. We affirm.