The defendant, Mario Ramirez Rodriguez, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion to correct what he believes to be an illegal sentence imposed for his 2007 guilty-pleaded convictionsoftwocountsofrapeofachild. Discerningnoerror,weaffirmtherulingof the trial court but remand the case for the entry of a corrected judgment form for Count 2 that reflects the pretrial jail credits awarded to the defendant.

Aristotle once explained that “it is possible to fail in many ways . . . while to succeed is possible only in one way[.]”1 With some notable exceptions, in order for an issue to be proper on appeal, success depends on the following requirements: (1) that an issue be properly raised in the trial court; and (2) that the issue be properly raised on appeal. Of the three arguments Appellants presented in this appeal, none meets both of the above requirements, though they all fail in different respects. As a result, we affirm the decision of the trial court and award Appellee attorney’s fees for defending against a frivolous appeal.

In this personal injury negligence action, the defendant died while the litigation was pending. The plaintiff failed to file a motion for substitution of party within ninety days of the original defendant’s death being suggested on the record. Over a month later, the plaintiff moved the trial court to enlarge the time to substitute the parties pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.02(2). The trial court denied the motion for an enlargement of time. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

The Domestic Relations Court for Meigs County dismissed a petition for order of protection, and the petitioner appealed to the Chancery Court for Meigs County (the “trial court”). The trial court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and dismissed the appeal. Because the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction, we reverse.

This action involves the valuation of thirty-two unimproved parcels of real property for taxation purposes. The property owners appealed the values assigned by the Knox County Assessor of Property to the Knox County Board of Equalization, the Tennessee State Board of Equalization, and the Tennessee Assessment Appeals Commission before filing a petition for judicial review in the Knox County Chancery Court (“trial court”). The trial court affirmed the respective values of the parcels as found by the Tennessee Assessment Appeals Commission. The property owners have appealed the trial court’s determination. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This appeal involves a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4.01(3) summons issue. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss after finding that plaintiff intentionally delayed the issuance of the summons for the complaint in contradiction to Rule 4.01(3) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee asserts the trial court did not have the opportunity to consider certain medical evidence during an expedited hearing. The employee does not allege in his notice of appeal or other filings that the trial court erred in any way in resolving the request for expedited hearing. Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

The Defendant-Appellant, Johnny Summers Cavin, entered guilty pleas to burglary and theft of property valued more than $2,500 but less than $10,000. He also entered guilty pleas to unrelated charges from a separate case. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant received concurrent sentences of two years and six months each on supervised probation, to be served consecutively to the sentences he received in an unrelated probation violation case. In a subsequent restitution hearing, the trial court ordered him to pay a total of $5,500 in restitution. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to impose restitution and that, alternatively, the trial court erred in setting the restitution amount at $5,500, asserting that the victim’s pecuniary loss was not substantiated by evidence and that the amount is unreasonable based on the Defendant’s income. Upon review, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to address the merits of the instant case, and the appeal is dismissed.

A jury convicted the Defendant, Benjamin Barton, of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”), driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of 0.08 percent (“DUI per se”), and reckless driving. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with six months to be served in confinement. The Defendant moved for a new trial and for the trial court to reconsider his sentence under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, and the motions were denied. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdicts, that he is entitled to a mistrial due to a discovery violation regarding expert testimony on retrograde extrapolation, that the trial court abused its discretion in failing suspend his sentence due to his health, and that there are errors on the judgment forms. We conclude that the Defendant is not entitled to relief on his convictions but that the sentencing forms are in conflict with the trial court’s oral judgments, and we remand for the trial court to correct the forms.

Millicent Traylor, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals a district court order denying her motion seeking a sentence reduction. This case has been referred to a panel of the court that, upon examination, unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Accepting the serious nature of Traylor’s alleged medical conditions, her argument is foreclosed by our recent holding that “a defendant’s incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic—when the defendant has access to the COVID-19 vaccine—does not present an ‘extraordinary and compelling reason’ warranting a sentence reduction.” United States v. Lemons, --- F.4th ---, No. 21-5313, 2021 WL 4699249 (6th Cir. Oct. 8, 2021) (citing United States v. Broadfield, 5 F.4th 801, 803 (7th Cir. 2021)). The COVID-19 vaccine is available to inmates at Traylor’s facility, and Traylor has received both doses of the Pfizer vaccine. See COVID-19 Coronavirus, Federal Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (Oct. 29, 2021, 3:00 PM) (listing the number of inmates and staff at each federal prison, including Traylor’s facility, who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 at that facility). Therefore, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in determining that Traylor’s circumstances are not extraordinary and compelling. And because the district court determined that there was no extraordinary and compelling reason to grant Traylor’s motion, it also did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion without addressing whether the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors support a sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); Elias, 984 F.3d at 519. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order.