Roy Evans, Defendant, admitted to violating the conditions of probation and submitted the sentencing determination to the trial court. Following a hearing on the sentence, the trial court revoked probation and suspension of the sentence and ordered Defendant to commence the execution of the judgment as originally entered. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Alphonzo Chalmers, appeals the denial of his fourth petition for writ of error coram nobis in which he challenges his 1999 conviction for first degree premeditated murder. On appeal, Petitioner claims: that two pages of a “gunshot wound path report” detailing the victim’s injuries constituted newly discovered exculpatory evidence which was suppressed by the State contrary to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); that he is actually innocent of murder because the State relied on the “knowingly false” testimony of eyewitness Alan King and Detective Miguel Aguila; that the gunshot wound path report would have refuted the testimony of Mr. King who allegedly testified that the victim had been shot in the stomach; and that the coram nobis court abused its discretion in denying his petition for the writ. Following review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

Defendant, Annon Sara Aloqili, pled guilty to aggravated burglary, theft up to $1,000, and misdemeanor evading arrest and was sentenced as a Range I offender to an effective sentence of six years on supervised probation. Following a hearing on a violation of probation warrant, the trial court found Defendant in violation of her suspended sentence, revoked the probation, and ordered her to serve the balance of the sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant claims the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her probation and ordering her to serve the original sentence in confinement. After hearing oral arguments and following a review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from the court-ordered sale of real property to satisfy unpaid property tax owned by a living trust. After the property was sold, the trustee, acting pro se, moved to set aside the sale, asserting a violation of the trust’s due-process rights. The trial court dismissed the motion because the trustee was not a licensed attorney and was thus unqualified to represent the trust in a legal proceeding. For the reasons explained below, we have determined that the trial court correctly dismissed the motion because the pro se trustee is not licensed to practice law in Tennessee. We also dismiss this appeal on the same ground because the trustee signed the notice of appeal on behalf of the trust, and a non- attorney may not represent a trust in our Tennessee courts. See ELM Children’s Educational Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 468 S.W.3d 529, 530 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014); see also Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11 and Old Hickory Eng’g & Machine Co, Inc. v. Henry, 937 S.W.2d 782, 786 (Tenn. 1996). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

This case involves a motion by the defendants to enforce an alleged “walkaway settlement” agreement. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs—through their former attorney— agreed to a binding settlement agreement. After an evidentiary hearing on the motion, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case. The trial court’s decision is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

The defendant appealed to circuit court following a judgment against it in general sessions court. The plaintiff filed no notice of appeal, but amended its complaint to allege an additional claim. The plaintiff later filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking an award of attorney’s fees. Eventually, the defendant dismissed its appeal and asked that the general sessions court judgment be affirmed. The trial court affirmed the previous judgment from the general sessions court, but also granted the plaintiff an additional judgment for attorney’s fees and discretionary costs. The defendant appeals the award of attorney’s fees and discretionary costs. We reverse the trial court’s decision to award the plaintiff attorney’s fees, but affirm the award of discretionary costs.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This case requires us to interpret the serpentine language of 28 U.S.C. § 3011(a), which entitles the United States to recover a surcharge from Susan Pioch of 10% of . . . something. The Government wants to apply the 10% surcharge to the two-million-plus dollars of debt that Pioch owes on a judgment in a criminal case. Pioch insists that the Government can apply the 10% surcharge to just $367,681.47, which is the amount involved in a garnishment of two of her financial accounts in partial satisfaction of the judgment’s outstanding balance.

We conclude that the Government can apply the 10% surcharge to the two-million-plus- dollars outstanding on the judgment. First, under § 3011(a), when the Government initiates an action or proceeding under Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act subchapter B or C to recover debt owed to the United States, the United States is entitled to recover a surcharge of 10% of the outstanding debt. Second, the debt must be paid off before the United States may collect the § 3011(a) surcharge. Finally, the § 3011(a) surcharge is an amount to be added to, not subtracted from, the judgment. We thus VACATE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Following the execution of a search warrant on their property, the Defendants, Donald Schoenthal and Tara Neutzler, were separately indicted by a Carroll County Grand Jury in 156-count indictments, which charged each of them with 2 counts of aggravated child neglect or endangerment, 2 counts of attempted aggravated child neglect or endangerment, 34 counts of aggravated animal cruelty, and 118 counts of animal cruelty. The State later dismissed over 120 of these counts. Thereafter, the Defendants separately filed a motion to dismiss the indictment and a motion to suppress evidence.1 After the trial court denied these motions, Defendant Schoenthal and Defendant Neutzler each entered “best interest” pleas2 to one count of aggravated animal cruelty (Count 63) and three counts of animal cruelty (Counts 37, 99, and 103). The Defendants’ plea agreements, which were accepted by the trial court, stated in part that each Defendant received a sentence of two years for the aggravated animal cruelty count and eleven months and twenty-nine days for each of the three animal cruelty counts, that these sentences would be served consecutively to one another, that the remaining counts of their respective indictments were dismissed, and that the trial court would determine the manner of service of these sentences. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered Defendant Schoenthal to serve a total of 120 days in confinement and Defendant Neutzler to serve a total of 75 days in confinement before serving the remainder of their sentences on supervised probation. Thereafter, the Defendants appealed their cases, arguing that the trial court erred in denying their motions to suppress, and this court later consolidated these cases into a single appeal. After review, we conclude that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the suppression issue because no appeal of right lies for the Defendants pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b) and Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 37(b)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

This is a taxpayer action challenging the Tennessee Department of Revenue’s decision to deny its refund claim. The taxpayer filed a refund claim in December 2015, after which the parties entered into three consecutive extension agreements under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 67- 1-1501 and -1802. Shortly before the last extension expired, the taxpayer commenced this action to obtain its refund. The Department responded by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the one- year statute of limitations to commence the refund action was not extended. Specifically, the Department insisted the extension agreements only extended the limitation periods for it to assess taxes and refund overpayments. For its part, the taxpayer insisted the parties agreed to extend the deadline for filing suit and that its action was timely commenced. The trial court agreed with the Department and dismissed the complaint. We affirm the trial court’s decision because the plain language of each extension agreement references only the assessment and refund of taxes.

This appeal arises from a post-divorce contempt action. Darlene Christmas Murray (“Wife”) filed a petition for contempt in the General Sessions Court for Roane County (the “trial court”) in 2015, alleging that her former husband, Louis Wade Godsey (“Husband”), should be held in contempt for failing to pay Wife retirement benefits to which she was entitled under their final decree of divorce. The trial court found Husband in contempt and awarded Wife, inter alia, $25,000.00 in attorney’s fees as punishment. Because the evidence in the record preponderates against the trial court’s finding that Husband actually and willfully violated a court order, we reverse.