In this termination of parental rights case, we do not reach the substantive issues because the trial court’s order is not compliant with the findings and conclusions requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(k); thus, this Court is unable to conduct its review.

Grants & Denials List

May 18, 2020 - May 22, 2020

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Camille Davis filed for bankruptcy. Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code allows her to satisfy her unsecured debts by paying all of her “projected disposable income” to her unsecured creditors over a five-year period. Davis believes that the wages she contributes to her employer-sponsored retirement plan are not considered disposable income under the Code. The bankruptcy court disagreed. Because we conclude that the statutory text is best read to exclude voluntary retirement contributions from disposable income, we VACATE the bankruptcy court’s order and REMAND for further proceedings.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This First Step Act appeal raises two issues of first impression in the Sixth Circuit: (1) whether eligibility for resentencing under the Act turns on the statute of conviction as opposed to a defendant’s specific conduct, and (2) whether the process a district court must afford an eligible defendant includes an opportunity to present objections. Because the Act’s definition of a “covered offense” ties eligibility to the statute of conviction, we join all of our sister circuits that have reached the issue and hold that eligibility for resentencing under the First Step Act is a categorical inquiry governed by the statute of conviction. On resentencing process, we follow our recent cases holding that eligible defendants are not entitled to plenary resentencing, but that a district court’s discretion to deny resentencing under the Act is not unfettered, United States v. Foreman, No. 19-1827, --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 2204261, at *3 (6th Cir. May 7, 2020); United States v. Smith, No. 19-5281, --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 2503261, at *2 (6th Cir. May 15, 2020). Because an eligible defendant is entitled to an accurate amended guideline calculation and renewed consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, a defendant seeking to raise objections must be afforded an opportunity to do so. We AFFIRM the district court’s conclusion that Boulding is eligible for resentencing under the Act, VACATE the sentence imposed, and REMAND for resentencing.

The Petitioner, James Jaylen Simmons, pleaded guilty to second degree murder with an agreed sentence of forty years. The Petitioner timely filed a post-conviction petition, alleging that his attorney was ineffective, rendering his guilty plea unknowing and involuntary. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Defendant-Appellant, Jonathan Montgomery, was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of initiating a false report in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16- 502, a Class D felony. As a Range I standard offender, the Defendant received a sentence of three years imprisonment to be served at thirty (30) percent release eligibility. In this appeal as of right, the sole issues presented for our review are (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the Defendant’s conviction, and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Defendant’s request for an alternative sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The pro se Petitioner, Charles Blackstock, appeals as of right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s order summarily denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis or, alternatively, petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 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.

This appeal was filed by the plaintiffs pursuant to the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 67-1-1801 to challenge assessments rendered against them by the Commissioner of Revenue for the State of Tennessee. The dispute involves the plaintiffs’ challenge to Tennessee’s assessments of excise tax for the period 2010 through 2012. After cross motions for summary judgment were filed, the trial court found in favor of the Commissioner. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

PER CURIAM. Jermarcus Richardson asked the district court to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act. Because the district court didn’t abuse its discretion when it refused to do so, we affirm.

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. David Lynn Buie challenges his 180-month sentence for felonious possession of a firearm as enhanced by the Armed Career Criminal Act, or ACCA. Buie’s criminal history includes a host of Tennessee convictions. Buie understandably concedes that his manslaughter offense qualifies as a “violent felony” for purposes of an ACCA sentencing enhancement, but he contends that neither his aggravated burglary nor arson offenses do. Our precedent forecloses Buie’s argument as to aggravated burglary. See Brumbach v. United States, 929 F.3d 791 (6th Cir. 2019). Today, we reach the same conclusion as to his arson conviction. It too is an ACCA predicate. Adding all of this together, Buie has committed three violent felonies under ACCA, the trigger for a sentencing enhancement. We thus AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.