A Knox County jury convicted Defendant, Jerry L. Dismukes, of possession of more than fifteen grams of heroin with intent to sell or deliver; possession of less than 200 grams of fentanyl with intent to sell or deliver; possession of more than twenty-six grams of a substance containing cocaine with intent to sell or deliver; and possession of drug paraphernalia. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court provided the improper remedy when it modified one of his convictions to a lesser offense after the jury’s verdict. Defendant also argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove an unbroken chain of custody. The State argues that Defendant waived his first argument, and that the evidence was sufficient to establish an unbroken chain of custody. We agree with the State.

The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This is a premises liability action in which the plaintiff slipped and fell while she was walking to a pedicure station in a nail salon. Two principal issues are presented. First, the plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by denying her Tenn. R. Civ. P. 34A.02 motion for spoliation of evidence by finding that the defendant was not put on notice that a video recording from a surveillance camera in the nail salon was relevant to pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. Second, the plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing her complaint on the basis that there was no proof that the defendant had created the allegedly hazardous condition in the nail salon or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition. We affirm.

For the week of December 4, 2023 - December 8, 2023

The Defendant, Duane R. Doxtater, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his effective tenyear probationary sentence for multiple convictions stemming from two separate global guilty plea agreements. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by fully revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a post-divorce dispute in which the former husband seeks to terminate alimony in futuro based on the fact that a third party, not related by blood, resided with the former wife for several months. It is undisputed that the girlfriend of the parties’ son had previously resided in the former wife’s home, but that the girlfriend had moved out before the husband filed his petition to terminate alimony. The parties’ Marital Dissolution Agreement (“MDA”) provides that “alimony shall terminate upon the death of Husband or Wife, the remarriage of Wife, o[r] Wife’s cohabitation with someone to whom she is not related by blood pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. [§] 36-5-121(f).” The trial court held that the reference to § 36-5-121(f) evinced an intent to rely on the so-called “cohabitation statute” in subsection (f)(2)(B), which creates a rebuttable presumption that an alimony recipient does not need the same level of support when they are living with a third person. However, because the son’s girlfriend was no longer residing in the wife’s home, the trial court summarily dismissed the petition. The trial court relied on a line of cases, including Woodall v. Woodall, No. M2003-02046-COA-R3-CV, 2004 WL 2345814 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2004) and Wiser v. Wiser, No. M2013-02510-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 1955367 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2015), which stand for the proposition that “[a]n obligor spouse cannot rely on Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-121(f)(2)(B) to terminate or suspend alimony payments if the alleged cohabitation ceased before the modification petition was tried.” We affirm the trial court in all respects. The MDA also contains a mandatory attorney fee provision entitling the wife, as the prevailing party, to recover her reasonable expenses incurred in defending this appeal, including attorney’s fees and court costs. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court shall make the appropriate award.

A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, Webster Malone, of two counts of selling less than .5 grams of cocaine. The trial court denied his request for community corrections and sentenced him to an effective sentence of fifteen years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The parties’ dispute centers upon whether a tenant is required to pay rent for a particular ten-month period. The landlord asserts that it delayed but did not waive payment. The tenant counters that the landlord’s agent waived rent and that the tenant forbore terminating the lease based on the agent’s representations. The trial court, after setting aside a default judgment, concluded that the landlord’s agent did not have the authority to waive rent but had the authority to modify the lease to reduce rent for three of the ten months. The tenant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in its determination as to the agent’s authority, the issue of estoppel, and the issue of waiver. The landlord asserts that the trial court erred in setting aside the default judgment and in reducing the rent for the three-month period. After a review of the record, we affirm the setting aside of the default judgment but reverse the trial court’s ruling on the agent’s authority and remand for further proceedings.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff, a government contractor, brought suit against Defendants, a township and a consulting company, claiming racial discrimination after the consulting company allegedly made false and inaccurate statements about Plaintiff, leading Defendant township to award a government contract to a rival firm. The suit alleged violations of Plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution, federal statutes, and Michigan law. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under either 42 U.S.C. § 1981 or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by failing to allege the racial composition of its ownership. Further, the district court held that Plaintiff lacked standing to assert its constitutional claims, and that Defendant consulting company was not a state actor for purposes of § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE in part and AFFIRM in part the district court’s order dismissing the case and REMAND the case for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. In 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule governing the Title X grant program, which makes grants to assist in the establishment and operation of family planning projects. Among other things, the Rule interpreted § 1008 of Title X, which bars funds appropriated under the Title X grant program from being “used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” A group of states sued, seeking to block two provisions of the 2021 Rule. First, the States challenge the 2021 Rule’s elimination of a prior HHS rule that required grantees to maintain strict physical and financial separation between their Title X programs and any abortion-related services they might provide. Second, they challenge the Rule’s requirement that Title X projects provide referrals for abortion services when requested by the patient.

The Supreme Court has already had occasion to interpret § 1008, the statutory provision at the heart of this case. In Rust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that § 1008 is ambiguous as to program integrity and referrals for abortion and that Chevron deference applies. 500 U.S. 173, 184 (1991). Therefore, we defer to the agency’s interpretation of § 1008 if the interpretation is permissible. Id. While the doctrinal landscape undergirding Rust has shifted significantly since it was decided, Rust, and its application of Chevron, remain binding on this court. Applying Rust, we cannot say that the 2021 Rule’s referral requirement is an impermissible interpretation of § 1008. However, we hold that the 2021 Rule’s program-integrity requirements do not represent a permissible interpretation of § 1008. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in part and REVERSE in part.