A Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B petition for recusal appeal was filed in this Court following the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion.

This is a termination of parental rights case brought by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of the mother and the father on the grounds of persistence of conditions and severe child abuse, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 36-1-113(g)(3) and 36-1-113(g)(4), respectively. The juvenile court also terminated the father’s parental rights on the additional ground of severe child abuse pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(5). The Mother appealed the grounds for termination as well as the juvenile court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interests, while the father only appealed the juvenile court’s best interests finding. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This is the second appeal of this case. In Holleman v. Holleman, No. E2018-00451- COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 2308066 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2019), this Court remanded the case to the trial court for the sole purpose of determining the amount of Husband’s reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses under the parties’ Marital Dissolution Agreement. On remand, Appellee/Husband provided an attorney affidavit and timesheets to support his request for $11,260.00 in fees. Appellant/Wife provided no evidence to dispute the amount, and the trial court entered judgment for Husband for the full amount. Wife contends that she did not receive proper notice of the hearing on Husband’s motion and further contends that the trial court erred in awarding Husband his attorney’s fees and expenses. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Jeremy Reynolds, appeals his Hamilton County Criminal Court jury conviction for first degree premeditated murder. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred by admitting evidence that the Defendant and other individuals were gang members in violation of Tennessee Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b); (3) exculpatory evidence, namely the victim’s gunshot residue test and a photograph referenced by the gang report, were improperly withheld by the State; (4) the trial court erred by failing to compel the State to produce the above-referenced gunshot residue test and photograph; and (5) the cumulative effect of these errors deprived the Defendant of a fair trial. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient relevant to premeditation and that some of the evidence relative to gangs was improperly admitted. We remand for a new trial on one count of second degree murder, in which some gang evidence shall be excluded.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. In the interpretation of a legal text, as in an ordinary conversation, the way in which a drafter (or speaker) uses an indeterminate word is critical for deciding the word’s meaning on a particular occasion. That is true for the phrase we must interpret in this case: “different location.” Consider this phrase in relation to a store. Depending on the context, the phrase could refer to a distinct place within the store or to a separate place outside it. Suppose, for example, a friend says to you while cellphone shopping, “The cellphones used to be right here, but must have been moved to a different location.” You would likely take your friend to be referring to a different area within the store. Suppose instead your friend says, “We have to go to a different location because the cellphone I want is out of stock.” You would likely take your friend to be referring to a different store. Context is key to meaning.

We must apply this interpretive insight to a provision of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines that has engendered a broad circuit split. A robbery guideline enhances the base offense level by four if a victim “was abducted to facilitate commission of the offense[.]” U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) (2018). The guidelines commentary defines “abducted” to mean “that a victim was forced to accompany an offender to a different location.” Id. § 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(A). This case asks whether robbers accompanied their victims to a “different location” when they forced the victims from a cellphone store’s sales floor to its back room in order to tie them up. In the context of this “abduction” enhancement, we think the phrase “different location” is best read to refer to a place different from the store that is being robbed. And a store’s back room does not qualify as a “different location” from the store. The facts of this case instead trigger a related two-level enhancement that applies when robbers have “physically restrained” their victims. Id. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B). We thus reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for resentencing.

Former CEO brought an action for libel, false light invasion of privacy, and retaliatory discharge pursuant to the Tennessee Public Protection Act. In this appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of the amended complaint pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6), we affirm the trial court.

The Defendant, Antywan Eugene Savely, was convicted by a Bedford County Circuit Court jury of the sale of a Schedule II drug, a Class C felony; the delivery of a Schedule II drug, a Class C felony; and conspiracy to sell or deliver a Schedule II drug, a Class D felony. The court merged the delivery conviction into the sale conviction and imposed a twelve-year sentence as a Persistent Offender. The court imposed a consecutive twelve- year sentence as a Career Offender for the conspiracy conviction, for an effective term of twenty-four years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that the State could cross-examine him on a twenty-two-year-old felony conviction; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (3) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Sevier County Jury found Defendant, Stephanie Brown, guilty of reckless homicide. The trial court imposed a sentence of four years to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court properly admitted testimony about the hydrostatic or float test performed on the baby’s lungs; (2) whether the trial court properly admitted Defendant’s confession and denied her motion to dismiss the indictment; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction for reckless homicide; and (4) whether the trial court properly sentenced Defendant. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant, Anthea Hendrix Toutges, stated that the appellant was appealing the judgment entered on August 19, 2019. As the August 19, 2019 order does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This divorce action concerns the trial court’s division of the marital estate, calculation of child support, and its denial of alimony and attorney fees. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.