A taxpayer who rented hygienically-clean textiles to its customers challenged the revocation of three industrial machinery tax exemption certificates that it had previously been issued. An administrative judge determined that the taxpayer was not entitled to the exemption because the taxpayer’s operations did not constitute “manufacturing” as they were not necessary for processing tangible personal property. The taxpayer appealed to the Chancery Court for Davidson County. The chancery court reversed after concluding that the administrative decision was not supported by substantial and material evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm the chancery court’s decision.

Employee Patrece Edwards-Bradford filed a petition for benefit determination seeking permanent disability benefits for an alleged back injury. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims denied Employee's claim, finding that she had not rebutted the presumption of correctness afforded to the causation and impairment opinions of her authorized treating physicians, and was therefore not entitled to permanent disability benefits. Employee has appealed, and the appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for consideration and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm.

This is a post-divorce action involving the question of whether the alimony obligor’s transitional alimony obligation was properly terminated due to the alimony recipient’s purported cohabitation with a third party. The wife, as the alimony recipient, was found to be cohabiting with her parents. As such, the trial court analyzed whether the wife had rebutted the statutory presumption that she no longer needed alimony, concluding that she had not rebutted that presumption. Accordingly, the husband’s transitional alimony obligation was terminated. The wife timely appealed. Upon review, we determine that the trial court’s order terminating the husband’s transitional alimony obligation must be vacated due to a lack of necessary findings. We remand this matter to the trial court for additional findings concerning the wife’s residential situation at the time of trial.

In this divorce action, Wife appeals the trial court’s classification and distribution of assets, formation of a parenting plan, and calculation of Husband’s child support obligation. Wife also appeals the denial of her petition for criminal contempt. As appellee, Husband raises issues regarding the allocation of the parties’ equity in the marital property, the enrollment of the child in private school, and the distribution between the parties of education expenses for the child. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s decisions regarding the division of the parties’ property after minor modification, vacate the trial court’s decisions regarding child custody and child support, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Wife is barred from appealing the denial of her criminal contempt petition and we decline to award Wife her attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Sean Longmire, of one count of first degree murder and three counts of attempted first degree murder. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Demari Lepaul Thomas-Mathews appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). For the reasons set forth below, the Court VACATES his sentence and REMANDS for resentencing consistent with the opinion of this Court.

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Youth sports are as much about instilling life lessons as they are winning and losing. Child athletes can be forgiven for occasionally losing sight of this bigger picture. But we expect more from their parents.

As this case demonstrates, those expectations are not always met. Randall McElhaney is an enthusiastic supporter of his daughter, who, when this dispute arose, was an infielder on her high school softball team. His passion, however, sometimes gets the best of him. When his daughter was benched, McElhaney sent text messages to her coach criticizing his managerial decisions. In response, school officials banned McElhaney from attending games for the next week.

A dispute over the team’s starting infield soon became much more. McElhaney filed this suit, alleging that school officials retaliated against him for criticizing his daughter’s coach, speech that McElhaney believed was shielded by the First Amendment. Defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. In their minds, McElhaney was not denied a constitutional right, let alone one that was clearly established. Reaching only the clearly established prong of qualified immunity, the district court granted defendants’ motion and entered judgment in their favor.

As we see things, it is clearly established at a low level of generality that when a school employee interacts with a student, speech by the student’s parent about those interactions enjoys First Amendment protection. On that basis, we must reverse the district court. We remand the case to resolve whether retaliation occurred in the first instance.

NALBANDIAN, J., Circuit Judge. In 1986, Danny Hill was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Ohio state court. For 37 years, he’s been challenging his conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of a panel of this Court to grant federal habeas relief. After that, we again granted habeas relief based on different reasoning, and an en banc panel of this Court vacated that opinion and denied Hill’s petition for relief. With the first petition unsuccessful, Hill has filed a second habeas petition. It’s “second or successive.” So Hill must meet the gatekeeping provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).

The Chester County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Jerry Ray Mullins, for the first-degree murder of the victim, Samantha Melendez. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder. The trial court imposed a twenty-twoyear sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because he acted in self-defense when he shot the victim twice in the head. Following our review of the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Benjamin Spencer Brown, appeals the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences for his Hamilton County Criminal Court jury convictions of criminally negligent homicide and reckless endangerment. Discerning no error, we affirm.