Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee alleged she sustained right leg, right foot, and bilateral hip injuries when a large trash container fell on her at work. Although the employer asserted the employee had failed to give proper notice of her alleged work injury, it provided a panel of physicians upon receiving notice of the incident, and the employee selected a provider. Thereafter, the employee filed a hearing request asking the trial court to enter an order compelling the employer to pay temporary disability and additional medical benefits, including surgery. Following an expedited hearing, which included consideration of medical records and expert medical testimony from the authorized treating physician, the trial court denied the employee’s request for benefits. The employee has appealed, alleging in part that the trial court failed to consider pertinent medical records and other documents. After a careful review of the record, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s order and remand the case.

In the second appeal in this matter, the employee appeals a compensation order granting summary judgment to the employer. The employee, a superintendent at a construction site, was in a motor vehicle accident after taking another worker to pick up his vehicle following some repairs. The employee sought workers’ compensation benefits for alleged injuries to his neck, back, left leg, and left foot. The employer denied the claim, and, after an expedited hearing, the trial court determined the employee failed to show he was likely to prevail at trial. The employee appealed, and we affirmed the trial court’s order. Subsequently, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the employee gave insufficient notice of an alleged work accident and that the injury did not arise primarily out of or in the course and scope of the employment. The employer also argued the employee did not have the necessary medical proof to show his alleged injuries were primarily caused by the motor vehicle accident. The trial court determined that the employee came forward with no evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the motor vehicle accident occurred in the course and scope of his employment, granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the employee’s claim. The employee has appealed. Following careful review of the record, we affirm the order granting summary judgment and dismissing the claim and certify the trial court’s order as final.

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. A former restaurateur, Alma Reyes Galeana fled to the United States after several run-ins with gangs in Guerrero, Mexico. Once on United States soil, she sought asylum and withholding of removal. Reyes Galeana maintains that, as a Mexican business owner, she was a member of a “particular social group” that should be afforded relief from deportation under federal law. The Board of Immigration Appeals disagreed and denied her application. Reyes Galeana then petitioned this Court for review of the Board’s decision. Agreeing that “Mexican business owners” are not a particular social group, we deny her petition.

The Petitioner, Roderick Bates, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his post-conviction relief from his jury-trial convictions for especially aggravated burglary and first degree murder, for which he is serving an effective life sentence. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief for his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Williamson County jury convicted the Defendant, Connie Reguli, of one count of facilitation of custodial interference and two counts of being an accessory after the fact. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of three years of probation after service of thirty days in confinement and denied the Defendant’s request for judicial diversion. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support her convictions. She also asserts that the trial court erred by (1) failing to dismiss the indictment for its failure to include an essential element of the underlying felony of custodial interference; (2) failing to instruct the jury concerning the essential elements of custodial interference; and (3) failing to instruct the jury on the defenses of voluntary surrender and legal representation. Finally, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence of split confinement and denying her request for judicial diversion. Consistent with our decision in State v. Hancock, 678 S.W.3d 226 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2023), we recognize that the principal’s actions in this case did not violate Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-306 at the time they occurred. As such, we hold that the Defendant cannot be guilty of facilitating the felony of custodial interference or being an accessory after the fact. Accordingly, we respectfully reverse the trial court’s judgments, vacate the Defendant’s convictions, and dismiss the case.

The Appellant, A Close Bonding Co., LLC, acting as the bail bond surety in the criminal case of the Defendant, Jose S. Loredo, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of the Appellant’s motion to recuse and motion to set aside final forfeiture of the Defendant’s bond. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court did not err and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Michael Craft, Jackie Dewayne Davis, and Zachary Stuart Tablack, collectively “Defendants,” pled guilty as Range I offenders to two counts of voluntary manslaughter with the issue of judicial diversion and, alternatively, the length and manner of service of their sentences, to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the court sentenced each Defendant to concurrent terms of six years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendants Davis and Tablack claim that the trial court erred by denying judicial diversion, by denying probation, and by sentencing them to the maximum sentence. Defendant Craft claims that the court erred by imposing the maximum sentence. Discerning no reversible error, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Husband moved for relief from a final decree of divorce under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(2). He claimed that his former spouse intentionally misrepresented her income and assets during the divorce proceedings. The trial court denied the motion. We affirm.

The appellant challenges his convictions on two charges of criminal contempt for violating an order of protection prohibiting him from contacting his former partner. The convictions arise from two communications between the appellant and the appellee when exchanging their minor child. We have determined that the underlying orders lack the required level of clarity and contain significant ambiguities. We, therefore, reverse the convictions.