Petitioner, Darrell Wayne Bumpas, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in concluding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is the second appeal in this death case. As in the initial appeal, the issue concerns the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees. In both appeals, the trial court entered orders awarding substantially less than the fees requested by the surviving spouse’s attorney and provided for in a contract between the surviving spouse and her attorney. The underlying claim for death benefits was resolved without a trial, but the employer objected to the amount of the attorney’s fees sought by the surviving spouse’s attorney and to the payment of those fees in a lump sum. Following a hearing on the request for attorney’s fees, the trial court awarded a lump sum fee but reduced the fee from 20% to 7.5% of the difference between the recovery achieved under Tennessee law and the maximum recovery available under Mississippi law. Following the first appeal by the surviving spouse, we vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case for further consideration of the statutory provisions governing the review and approval of attorney’s fees. The trial court subsequently issued an order addressing the statutory provisions, and it again awarded a lump sum fee based on 7.5% of the difference between the recovery achieved in Tennessee and the potential recovery in Mississippi. The surviving spouse has again appealed. Upon careful consideration of the statutory provisions at issue, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case for entry of an order approving the attorney’s fee agreed to by the surviving spouse and her attorney.

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Temujin Kensu, also known as Frederick Freeman, is a permanent resident of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), sentenced to life imprisonment for first-degree murder. See generally Freeman v. Trombley, 744 F. Supp. 2d 697 (E.D. Mich. 2010), rev’d, 483 F. App’x 51 (6th Cir. 2012). Alleging several deprivations of constitutional rights, he filed a complaint against Corizon, a correctional-health-care contractor, and twenty-nine Corizon and MDOC employees. Finding his complaint too long and unclear, the district court dismissed it and let Mr. Kensu try again. He did, but it was still too long and unclear. The district court explained the problems with Mr. Kensu’s complaint in more detail and gave him one last chance to amend it. But, perhaps channeling the spirit of Polonius, Mr. Kensu made his complaint longer instead of reducing it to a plain statement of his grievance. The district court therefore dismissed his complaint with prejudice. For the reasons below, we affirm.

The Defendant previously entered guilty pleas to various drug related offenses and received an effective sentence of fourteen years’ probation. Four affidavits and arrest warrants alleging violations of his probation subsequently issued, and following a hearing conducted via Zoom video conferencing technology (“Zoom”), the trial court revoked his probation and ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) it was plain error for the trial court to conduct the revocation hearing via Zoom because it “failed to make a specific finding, utilizing the law as articulated in Maryland v. Craig [497 U.S. 838 (1990)],” in violation of his right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution; and (2) the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive. Upon our review, we affirm.

Waynard Quartez Winbush, Petitioner, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his 2016 conviction for conspiracy to sell a Schedule I controlled substance within a thousand feet of a school. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The Defendant was indicted by an Obion County Grand Jury of aggravated assault in that he “feloniously and intentionally caused serious bodily injury to Ashley Tidwell in violation of T.C.A. §39-13-102(a)(1)(A), a class C felony[.]” A jury convicted the Defendant of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor reckless endangerment. T.C.A. §39-13-103. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, suspendedtosupervisedprobationfollowingtheserviceof180daysinconfinement. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the trial court erred in imposing the sentence. Upon our review, we affirm.

The defendant, Marterius O’Neal, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convictions of first degree murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the pretrial statement he provided to the police, by severing his trial from that of his co- defendant, and by limiting his cross-examination of a State witness. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

After a Knox County jury convicted Defendant, Michael Lynch, of all six counts of the indictment, the trial court merged each alternative count, convicting Defendant of one count of theft of property valued at $10,000 or more, one count of theft of property valued at $2500 or more, and one count of attempted theft of property valued at $2500 or more. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a total effective sentence of fifteen years. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by: (1) denying a motion to suppress, (2) refusing to sever offenses; and (3) determining several of Defendant’s prior convictions were admissible.1 Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. After a thorough review of the issues and record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, William Thomas Kelly, appeals his Tipton County Circuit Court Jury convictions of evading arrest, violating the open container law, violating the financial responsibility law, and driving on a revoked, cancelled, or suspended license, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. Because we discern possible clerical error in the judgment form for Count 2, we remand the case for the entry of any appropriate corrected judgment form for that count.

The petitioner, Harold Holloway, Jr., appeals the summary dismissal of his petition, styled in the alternative as both a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because the petitioner failed to present colorable claims for relief via either procedural vehicle, the trial court did not err by summarily dismissing the pleading.