CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. During an unannounced visit to Jaquar Latimer’s residence, parole officers observed a pistol sitting in plain view on a loveseat. A search of the home unearthed two other firearms and nearly a dozen grams of cocaine.

Following his ensuing conviction for possessing drugs and firearms, Latimer was sentenced to 175 months in prison coupled with a consecutive 24-month sentence for supervised- release violations largely premised on the underlying drugs and firearms offenses. On appeal, Latimer contends that the government failed to show that Latimer possessed the contraband found at his residence. Because more than ample evidence connected Latimer to those items, we affirm.

Petitioner, Frank E. Small, was convicted in 2016, after a jury trial, of robbery and home improvement fraud. This Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Frank E. Small, No. E2017-01266-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 2383033, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 25, 2018), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 13, 2018). Petitioner appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Week of October 11, 2021 - October 15, 2021

In Case No. 113496, Dominick Ratliff, Petitioner, pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine in a drug-free zone and received a sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration with a 100 percent release eligibility. In Case No. 112791,1 Petitioner pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine and simple possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Petitioner received concurrent sentences of eight years’ incarceration with a thirty percent release eligibility and eleven months and twenty-nine days’ incarceration, respectively. The trial court ran the sentences in both cases concurrently, for an effective fifteen-year sentence with a 100 percent release eligibility. Petitioner filed a timely post-conviction petition, alleging in part that his plea was unknowing and involuntary. The post-conviction court denied relief, and Petitioner now appeals. Following a thorough review of the record and law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Erik Sean Potts, entered a guilty plea to driving under the influence (“DUI”) by impairment (second offense) in exchange for dismissal of four other charges stemming from his DUI offense and a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days to be served on supervised probation after service of forty-five days of confinement. The Defendant reserved a certified question of law challenging the denial of his motion to suppress, which was based upon an unconstitutional search and seizure. After thorough review, we conclude that the certified question does not meet the requirements of Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and State v. Preston, 759 S.W.2d 647 (Tenn. 1988), and, as a result, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Defendant, Lorenzo Barnhill, claims the trial court erred by finding that he was a dangerous offender and ordering his four-year sentence in Case No. 2019-A-106 to be served consecutively to his effective seven-year sentence in Case No. 2019-A-334. After a review of the record and applicable law, we determine that the trial court provided reasons on the record establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant was an offender whose “record of criminal activity is extensive.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(2). Because the trial court found one of the seven criteria listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in aligning the sentences consecutively. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Issues regarding an award of attorney fees remain pending, so the order appealed from does not constitute a final appealable judgment. As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

For the week of October 4, 2021 - October 8, 2021

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. In 1995, McKeon Products (“McKeon”) sued Howard S. Leight and Associates (“Leight”) over its use of a phonetically identical trademark. Both companies made earplugs. McKeon used the brand name “MACK’S,” and Leight used the brand names “MAX” and “MAX-LITE.” The potential for confusion is obvious.

Unpersuaded, McKeon moved the district court to enforce the consent decree and end Honeywell’s online retail sales. McKeon won below, where the district court held that laches wasn’t an available defense and that McKeon had the correct interpretation of the consent decree.

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Michael Lemons appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion seeking a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court concluded that Lemons failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying a sentence reduction. Seeing no abuse of discretion in that determination, we affirm.