LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Two decades ago, the Kentucky General Assembly enacted a law requiring abortion facilities to obtain transfer agreements with a local hospital and transport agreements with a local ambulance service. Ky. Rev. Stat. (KRS) § 216B.0435. Regulations promulgated in 2017 imposed stricter conditions on the agreements but also allowed successive, ninety-day waivers for facilities unable to comply with the law. 902 Ky. Admin. Regs. (KAR) 20:360 § 10. The plaintiffs in this case, who were, at the time, Kentucky’s only licensed abortion facility, its owner, and another facility seeking licensure, challenged the transfer- and transport-agreement requirements as imposing an undue burden on abortion access. The plaintiffs argued that it had become impossible for them to obtain the required agreements, and that the law’s enforcement would leave Kentucky without a licensed abortion facility, thereby eliminating abortion access in the Commonwealth. Agreeing with the plaintiffs, the district court held that Kentucky’s requirements were facially invalid and permanently enjoined them.

Kentucky appeals the permanent injunction, arguing, among other things, that the plaintiffs failed to show that the law would in fact leave the Commonwealth without a licensed facility, because a facility unable to obtain the required agreements could still obtain a waiver. Kentucky also appeals the district court’s order imposing monetary sanctions for failure to produce a designee for a properly noticed deposition. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing monetary sanctions, so we AFFIRM in part. But because the district court erred in concluding that Kentucky would be left without an abortion facility, we REVERSE in part, VACATE the permanent injunction, and REMAND for further proceedings.

The Defendant, Nelson P. Troglin, appeals from the Bledsoe County Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1. He contends that the trial court erred in denying relief on the basis that he was illegally convicted of the offense of attempted first degree felony murder. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following the reversal and remand of this case for a new evidentiary hearing, Corey Mitchell v. State, No. W2016-01818-CCA-R3-PC, 2018 WL 3005379, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 14, 2018), the post-conviction court again denied relief to the Petitioner, Corey Mitchell. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary, and that his plea should be withdrawn to correct manifest injustice. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The pro se Petitioner, James Kelly, appeals as of right from the Bradley County Criminal Court’s order summarily denying his pro se pleading that the trial court treated as a petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Brandon Harris, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief arguing that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and call witnesses, failing to present expert testimony of mental impairment, and failing to object to the State’s certification of a voice recognition expert. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A McNairy County jury convicted the Defendant, Robert Glen Gray, of two counts of delivery of methamphetamine weighing .5 grams or more. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to a total effective sentence of twenty-five years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, Ronald Davis, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his three-year probationary sentence for identity theft. The trial court determined that the Defendant’s failure to report to his probation officer violated the terms of his probation sentence and ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence. The Defendant asserts that the trial court’s revocation of his probation sentence was an abuse of discretion because he “was trying to connect with his probation officer.” The record supports the trial court’s finding that the Defendant failed to report to his probation officer during a six-month period. Based upon this evidence, we conclude that revocation of the probation sentence was not an abuse of discretion.

The Petitioner, Darrell A. Cooper, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2016 convictions for two counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, and one count of possession of a firearm while being a convicted felon, for which he is serving a twenty-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, rendering his guilty pleas involuntary. We remand the case to the post-conviction court for the entry of an order setting forth findings of facts and conclusions of law in compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-111(b) (2018).

Defendant, Carl Allen, is appealing the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves a petition to enforce a visitation order after the entry of a final decree of adoption. The adoptive parents filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted in part and denied in part. The trial court ordered the parties to participate in depositions to address the issue of “acquiescence” and determine “if an enforceable right of visitation with the minor Child was acquired by the Petitioners being allowed to visit after the adoption of the minor Child was finalized.” The adoptive parents sought and were granted permission to file an interlocutory appeal, challenging the denial in part of their motion to dismiss. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.