CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. The target of Demetrius Woodson’s interstate diamond-stealing scheme, it seems, could only be Jared. Woodson and his accomplices stole nearly $100,000 in diamonds from over a dozen Jared jewelry stores in six states. Following Woodson’s guilty plea to charges of conspiring to commit offenses against the United States, the district court applied a two-level sentencing enhancement after finding that a central part of Woodson’s scheme was perpetual relocation to avoid law enforcement. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(A). On appeal, Woodson argues that his practice of returning to his “home base” in Toledo means he never “relocated” the scheme, for Guidelines purposes. We reject his argument and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. The qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) encourage whistleblowers to act as private attorneys general and sue companies making false claims for federal money. See 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733. Kathi Holloway, the qui tam relator in this action, sued Heartland Hospice and related entities (“Heartland”) under the FCA for orchestrating a corporate-wide scheme to submit false claims for payments from Medicare and Medicaid to cover hospice care. Heartland allegedly enrolled patients in hospice when they were not terminally ill and kept them there, even when employees like Holloway urged their release.

Heartland, however, shoots back that Holloway is not a genuine whistleblower, that her claims are drawn from prior allegations against Heartland, and accordingly that her qui tam action is prohibited by the FCA’s public-disclosure bar. In the alternative, Heartland argues that Holloway has not satisfied the FCA’s heightened pleading standard for allegations of fraud and, in particular, that she has not satisfied the limited exception to that standard that we announced in U.S. ex rel. Prather v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmtys., Inc., 838 F.3d 750 (6th Cir. 2016). We hold that Holloway’s action is barred in light of prior public disclosures. We accordingly AFFIRM the district court’s judgment of dismissal.

SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Defendants-Appellants Alex Castro, Dante Howard, and Solon Tatum of conspiring to distribute heroin, cocaine, and marijuana in western Michigan. The evidence at trial depicted a sophisticated drug trafficking organization, with the conspirators going to great lengths to avoid detection. Appellants challenge the tools the government used to ensnare members of the organization, including wiretaps that recorded drug-related conversations between co-conspirators. Because the district court properly authorized those wiretaps, properly admitted evidence obtained from them, properly concluded that the evidence offered by the government supported Appellants’ convictions, and properly sentenced Appellants, we affirm.

Defendant, Ashley Donielle Wright, entered guilty pleas to five counts of identity theft and one count of misdemeanor theft. Pursuant to the plea agreement, she was to receive an effective sentence of two years, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a hearing, the trial court denied judicial diversion and sentenced Defendant to serve forty-eight hours in confinement and the remainder of the agreed- upon sentence on supervised probation. Defendant appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in denying diversion and in ordering confinement. Because the record reflects that the trial court did not make necessary factual finding or indicate on the record the sentencing considerations that warranted imposition of the sentence, we reverse the judgments and remand for the trial court to make adequate factual findings, engage in the requisite legal analysis, and impose judgments in accordance with the mandated statutory and common law considerations and in conformity with the plea agreement.

The Petitioner, Howard Brackson Carrier, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he is entitled to cumulative error relief. After thorough review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

Husband appeals the denial of his motion for relief under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02. Husband argues that a divorce decree and marital dissolution agreement should be set aside for his lack of capacity to understand the agreement and advocate for himself. Separately, he claims the agreement itself is unconscionable. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This is a post-custody contempt case. We do not reach the substantive issues because the order appealed is not final. As such, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal, and the appeal is dismissed. Tenn. R. App. P. 3.

The Father appeals the imposition of a retroactive child support obligation for more than five years, contending that the Mother did not show good cause for imposing the obligation, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-2-311(a)(11)(G)(i); he also contends that the calculation of his income was erroneous. Upon our review, we affirm the imposition of the retroactive child support obligation in excess of five years; we vacate that portion of the order establishing the amount of Father’s obligation and remand for the trial court to recalculate the same.

This appeal involves a petition to terminate parental rights to three children. The trial court found there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate on multiple grounds and that termination is in the best interest of the children. Only the mother appealed. We affirm the trial court’s decision to terminate the mother’s parental rights and remand.

This is a divorce case. Husband/Appellant appeals the trial court’s: (1) decision denying Husband credit for premarital payments he made on certain marital assets; (2) division of certain marital assets and debts; (3) award of transitional alimony to Wife; (4) award of alimony in solido to Wife; and (5) calculation of the amount of child support. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.