The Appellant, Joshua Ryan Steele, was convicted of domestic assault and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days to be served on probation. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal made at the close of the State’s proof and the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Jorrel Brown, appeals the Franklin County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his three convictions of passing a forged check, Class E felonies, and resulting effective three-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and, therefore, that his guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Knox County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Trendell Brady, on four counts rape of a child. Following a trial, the jury acquitted Defendant of counts one and two and convicted Defendant as charged in counts three and four. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I standard offender to forty years on each count and ran the sentences consecutively. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, and, after a hearing, the trial court amended the judgments of conviction to reflect twenty-five-year sentences on each count, running consecutively. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that the trial court improperly sentenced Defendant to consecutive twenty-five-year sentences. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The Petitioner, Jonathan Alajemba, filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of facilitation of conspiracy to commit especially aggravated robbery, attempted especially aggravated robbery, attempted voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, reckless aggravated assault, and aggravated burglary. The Petitioner alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective by persuading the Petitioner not to testify and failing to present proof of an insanity defense. He further alleged that newly discovered evidence in the form of recanted testimony established he did not intend to commit robbery. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee reported that his left knee gave way while he was climbing a ladder at work. The employee had suffered a work-related injury to his left knee several years before when his employer had workers’ compensation coverage with a different insurer. The employee also had been diagnosed with pre-existing osteoarthritis in his left knee unrelated to his work injuries. One physician testified that the employee’s current need for a total knee arthroplasty was caused primarily by his pre- existing osteoarthritis. Another physician opined that the most recent work accident caused an exacerbation of his pre-existing osteoarthritis. The trial court concluded the employee is likely to prevail at trial in proving the need for a total knee arthroplasty arose primarily from the most recent work accident, and it ordered the employer to authorize treatment, including any recommended surgery. The employer and its current insurer have appealed. We affirm the trial court’s decision to the extent it orders the employer to provide reasonable and necessary medical benefits causally related to the most recent work injury. However, we reverse the trial court’s order compelling the employer and its current insurer to authorize the total knee arthroplasty, and we remand the case.

In this divorce proceeding, the Father appeals the designation of Mother as the primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment.

Four family members sued their former employer and eight individual defendants after their employment was terminated amid allegations of malfeasance. The complaint alleged nine causes of action. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against the former employer and six of the eight individual defendants on summary judgment. The plaintiffs and the remaining two defendants then became embroiled in an extended discovery battle. The battle ended with the trial court dismissing the remaining claims with prejudice based on the plaintiffs’ failure to cooperate in discovery. We conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the contract claims because the contract at issue was not ultra vires. Because we reverse that portion of the trial court’s decision, we also reverse the award of attorney’s fees under Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-20-113(a). We affirm the trial court in all other respects.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. In this consolidated appeal, Defendants Pilot Corporation and Pilot Travel Centers LLC (collectively “Pilot” or “Defendant”), appeal from the district court’s orders (1) denying Defendant’s motion to reconsider the district court’s order compelling discovery of employment dates and (2) dismissing, without prejudice, Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff Arvion Taylor, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, initiated this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., lawsuit against Defendant. As it did in its last appeal in this case, Defendant cites the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., in an attempt to establish that this Court has jurisdiction over the instant appeal. Unfortunately for Pilot, it has once again misread this statute. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Anthony Wallace (“Defendant”), pro se, appeals the summary dismissal of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 motion to correct what he claims were errors in his judgments of conviction. Defendant filed an untimely notice of appeal. Because we can find no errors in the judgments of conviction, the interest of justice does not warrant waiver of timely filing. The appeal is dismissed.

Defendant, Gary Strange, was convicted of three counts of rape of a child and one count of incest following a jury trial. The trial court sentenced Defendant to thirty years for each count of rape of a child and eight years for incest. The trial court ordered two of the thirty-year sentences to run consecutively with each other and concurrently to the remaining sentences for an effective sixty-year sentence as a Range II offender. On appeal, Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred by admitting the victim’s forensic interview; (2) the trial court erred by failing to require the State to make an election of offenses; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (4) there was a fatal variance between the indictment and the evidence; and (5) his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the briefs and the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.