Question:  Is a governmental mandate that requires the general population to wear face coverings in public during a state of emergency caused by COVID-19 constitutionally permissible?

Opinion:  As a general proposition, a governmental mandate that requires the general population to wear face coverings in public due to the health emergency caused by COVID-19 would be constitutionally defensible. The constitutionality of any particular governmental mandate, though, would depend on its specific terms and the underlying authority of the governmental entity issuing it.

This case involves the termination of a biological mother’s parental rights to her minor child. The father and the stepmother initiated the case by filing a petition to terminate the mother’s rights and to allow stepmother to adopt the child. In their petition, the parties argued the mother abandoned the child by failing to visit and failing to provide support. Trial was held in March 2017, nearly three years after the petition was filed. In June 2019, the trial court granted the petition and entered its final order, finding there was clear and convincing evidence that the mother abandoned the child and that it was in the child’s best interests to terminate the mother’s parental rights. The mother timely appealed. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Defendant, Danielle Lynette Wright, was convicted of second-degree murder by a Knox County Jury. She received a sentence of seventeen years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction of second- degree murder. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Kevin Lane, Defendant, was indicted for multiple offenses stemming from incidents that occurred at the home of his mother and involved both Defendant’s mother and brother. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to prohibit the State from utilizing Defendant’s prior convictions for impeachment. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three counts of aggravated criminal trespass, two counts of assault, one count of theft, five counts of domestic assault, one count of robbery, and one count of carjacking. As a result of the convictions, he was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-three years. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, the following issues are presented for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; and (2) whether the trial court erred by permitting the State to introduce evidence of prior bad acts in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Knox County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Sparkle Trenetta Jones, of selling and delivering less than fifteen grams of heroin within a drug-free school zone, Class A felonies. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that she serve seventeen years for each conviction and merged the convictions. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; that trial court committed plain error by allowing irrelevant testimony; and that the trial court erred by applying two enhancement factors. Based upon the record and the parties’ brief, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. As our court has previously explained, there are good reasons not to disparage your opponent, especially in court filings. “The reasons include civility; the near-certainty that overstatement will only push the reader away . . . ; and that, even where the record supports an extreme modifier, the better practice is usually to lay out the facts and let the court reach its own conclusions.” Bennett v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 731 F.3d 584, 585 (6th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). The most important reason here is that counsel’s colorful insults do nothing to show that his clients have standing to bring this lawsuit. We affirm the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

We affirm.

PER CURIAM. Lauren Kesterson, a student athlete at Kent State University, told her coach, Karen Linder, that Linder’s son had raped her. Linder never notified anyone at Kent State. The university learned about the assault two years later when Kesterson made a complaint to the school’s Title IX office. An investigation of the complaint led to Linder’s resignation. Kesterson sued Kent State, Linder, and another coach, Eric Oakley, for violating the free-speech- retaliation protections of the First (and Fourteenth) Amendments, the equal-protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Title IX. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. We reverse in part and affirm in part.

This is an action to enforce a citation from the Codes Department of the Metropolitan Government for operating a short-term rental property without a permit. The owner of the property appeals the default judgment entered as a sanction for failing to comply with the trial court’s order granting a motion to compel discovery. Upon a thorough review of the record, we have determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering the judgment as a sanction; accordingly, we affirm the judgment in all respects.

Petitioner, Jeffery Yates, appeals from the summary dismissal of his latest petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner has repeatedly and unsuccessfully challenged his convictions and sentences. In this, his latest challenge, Petitioner filed a petition for post- conviction relief challenging his 2003 convictions. He alleged that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court had improperly amended his judgment of conviction. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition, concluding that the grounds for relief had clearly been waived because they had not been raised in Petitioner’s prior petitions for post-conviction relief. Following our review, we conclude that an opinion in this case would have no precedential value and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

Pro-se petitioner, Tracy Lynn Harris, appeals from the Carroll County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.