This is an appeal from a divorce decree that was initially entered in 2017, but the divorce action was not finalized until 2022. In this appeal, Wife argues that the trial court should not have divorced the parties because there were no valid grounds for divorce. Because the parties executed a valid marital dissolution agreement agreeing to be divorced on the ground of irreconcilable differences, we affirm the trial court’s decision to declare the parties divorced. We modify the divorce decree, however, to provide that Wife is awarded the divorce on that ground, consistent with the parties’ agreement. We further award Husband his attorney’s fees as required under the marital dissolution agreement.

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. More than fifty years ago, Congress passed, and President Nixon signed into law, the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. Throughout the next half century, challenges to the constitutionality of the Act have been uniformly rejected. See Nat’l Mar. Safety Ass’n v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 649 F.3d 743 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 566 U.S. 936 (2012); Blocksom & Co. v. Marshall, 582 F.2d 1122 (7th Cir. 1978).

This case presents the same simple but poignant challenge: whether Congress’s delegation to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to set workplace-safety standards is constitutional. Plaintiff Allstates Refractory Contractors, a general contractor subject to OSHA’s oversight, challenges OSHA’s authority to set “reasonably necessary or appropriate” workplace-safety standards, 29 U.S.C. §§ 652(8), 655(b), as a violation of the nondelegation doctrine. The district court concluded that the delegation provided an “intelligible principle” and thus rejected Allstates’s challenge. We agree and now join our sister circuits in holding OSHA’s delegation to be constitutional.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Daja Smith and Davonte Hoskins were co-conspirators in a large bank-fraud scheme, in which they called the victims, pretending to be from their bank, gained access to the victims’ accounts, and stole their money. Both pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and aggravated identity theft, and both appealed, arguing that their sentences are procedurally unreasonable. We affirm.

Defendant, James Howard Smith, entered nolo contendere pleas to two counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of forty years for each of the two rape of a child convictions and ten years for the aggravated sexual battery conviction, resulting in an effective sentence of ninety years. On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The plaintiff, who was a student at the University of Tennessee of Knoxville (“UTK”), was assaulted while residing in a dormitory on campus. She filed an action with the Tennessee Claims Commission (“the Commission”) against UTK and the State of Tennessee (“the State”) predicated on Tennessee Code Annotated § 9-8-307, which provides that claims may be brought against the State for, inter alia, negligent care, custody, and control of persons or negligently creating or maintaining dangerous conditions on state-controlled real property. Following a hearing, the Commission dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, determining that she had failed to demonstrate the required elements of a negligence claim. The plaintiff has appealed. Based upon our review, we determine that the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 9-8- 307(a)(1)(C) and (E). We therefore reverse the Commission’s determination that it maintained subject matter jurisdiction concerning this action, and we remand this matter to the Commission for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The employee reported suffering a mental injury when a man with a weapon entered the store where she was working and held her at gunpoint during the course of robbing the store. The employer accepted her claim as compensable, and the employee received treatment from an authorized treating psychiatrist who later assigned an impairment rating and restrictions. Two other psychiatrists also assigned impairment ratings, one of which was a physician selected from the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation’s Medical Impairment Rating Registry. Following a compensation hearing, the trial court concluded the employee sustained an impairment consistent with the impairment rating assigned by the authorized treating physician and the doctor selected from the registry. The court also determined that the employee’s wage rate at the end of the initial benefit period was not equal to or greater than her pre-injury wage rate and that she was, therefore, entitled to increased benefits. The employer has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify it as final.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This is the fourth appeal in the case before this court. We summarized the claim in the last appeal: “Kentucky taxpayers sued the State of Kentucky and Sunrise Children’s Services, a religiously affiliated organization, alleging that Kentucky violated the Establishment Clause by paying Sunrise for religious services that the taxpayers allege Sunrise imposes on children in State custody.” Pedreira v. Sunrise Child.’s Servs., Inc., 826 F. App’x 480, 482 (6th Cir. 2020). After proceedings resumed, the taxpayers and Kentucky, without Sunrise, entered into a settlement agreement in which the taxpayers agreed to dismiss the suit in exchange for Kentucky’s agreement to make certain changes to its foster-care system, and jointly moved to dismiss the case with prejudice. The district court granted the motion, dismissed the case, and refused to review the settlement agreement. Sunrise appealed. We AFFIRM the decision below.

The Defendant, Devon Allen Wall, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery and was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated kidnapping related to the same incident. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his aggravated kidnapping convictions and challenges the trial court’s refusal to deliver a special jury instruction. Relative to his sufficiency challenge, the Defendant contends that there was no significant confinement or removal of the victims and that the aggravated kidnappings were incidental to the underlying crime of aggravated robbery. Regarding his second challenge, the Defendant contends that the requested jury instruction concerning “relatively trivial restraints” provided crucial guidance for the jury on Tennessee’s aggravated kidnapping statute. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A husband and wife entered into a marital dissolution agreement in 2019. Part of the agreement provided that once the husband retired from the United States Army, he would pay the wife alimony in futuro in an amount equal to the amount of military retirement to which the wife was entitled under the agreement. In 2021, the wife filed a motion for contempt alleging, inter alia, that the husband was not complying with the alimony requirements. The husband argued that the parties’ agreement was unenforceable because it is pre-empted by federal law. Following a hearing, the trial court found that the husband had failed to comply with the agreement but that the contempt was not willful. The husband appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm. We also grant the wife’s request for her appellate attorney’s fees.

A husband and wife each had multiple children from prior relationships. After their marriage, the husband and wife agreed to a contract that would control the distribution of their estates, with funds passing first to the surviving spouse and then to be distributed after the second spouse’s death among their children. Both husband and wife have since died. Husband’s children brought suit, arguing that the distribution of assets in husband’s final will is contrary to the contract. Awarding summary judgment to husband’s children in this declaratory judgment action, the trial court determined that the distribution of the husband’s estate is controlled by the terms of the contract. The wife’s estate appealed. We vacate and remand.