SUTTON, Chief Judge. Tennessee enacted a law that prohibits healthcare providers from performing gender-affirming surgeries and administering hormones or puberty blockers to transgender minors. After determining that the law likely violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, the district court facially enjoined the law’s enforcement as to hormones and puberty blockers and applied the injunction to all people in the State. Tennessee appealed and moved for an emergency stay of the district court’s order. Because Tennessee is likely to succeed on its appeal of the preliminary injunction, we grant the stay.

The appellant is a property owner who sought review of a decision by the Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission by filing a petition for writ of certiorari in chancery court. The chancery court affirmed the decision of the Historic Zoning Commission. The appellant property owner appeals. We affirm.

In this post-divorce action, the trial court modified the permanent parenting plan to provide the father with equal co-parenting time after the father and the mother had, by oral agreement, lived by an alternate plan for approximately sixteen months during the COVID- 19 pandemic in an effort to adapt to their child’s virtual education from home. The mother has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by finding a material change in circumstance affecting the child’s best interest and by determining that modification of the parenting plan was in the child’s best interest. Both parties have requested attorney’s fees on appeal. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. We decline to award attorney’s fees to either party.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Defendants Wendell Brown and Gary T. Reed were convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine (meth), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A). Both defendants appeal their convictions, arguing that the district court erred by failing to give a “buyer-seller instruction” to the jury. They also appeal their sentences, arguing that the district court committed a procedural error when calculating their Guidelines ranges under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the Guidelines). Brown separately contends that his conviction should be overturned because the district court erroneously admitted an incriminating statement by Reed, his nontestifying codefendant. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM Brown’s and Reed’s convictions, but VACATE their sentences and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

For the second time, the Defendant, Bruce Antione Cole, appeals the trial court’s order of restitution in the amount of $25,474.16 associated with his convictions for aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Specifically, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by reinstating a restitution amount that was not substantiated by evidence in the record and by failing to consider the Defendant’s financial resources and future ability to pay. After review, we reverse the restitution order of the trial court and remand for a new restitution hearing.

This case began with the filing of a “Civil Warrant Restraining Order” in general sessions court. The defendants then filed a petition to dismiss pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-101, et seq. The plaintiffs filed a response, asking the court to deny the TPPA petition to dismiss. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an order denying the defendants’ TPPA petition for reasons set forth in an attached transcript. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand for the trial court to enter an order setting forth the reason for the trial court’s decision.

This is a dependency and neglect case predicated on an allegation of severe abuse. The juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent and neglected and found that one of the children had been subject to severe child abuse at the hands of the children’s father. The father appealed to circuit court. After a de novo hearing, the circuit court found the allegations of severe abuse were not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence and declined to find the children dependent and neglected. The Department of Children’s Services, the children’s guardian ad litem, and the children’s mother appeal, arguing that the circuit court erred in concluding that the evidence of severe abuse was not clear and convincing. Based on our review of the entire record, we find there was not clear and convincing evidence to support a finding of severe abuse. Therefore, we affirm the trial court.

In this case, we consider the appropriate discipline for Tennessee attorney James Ralph Hickman, Jr. The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a petition for discipline against Hickman alleging that he violated the Rules of Professional Conduct while representing an estate in probate proceedings. A hearing panel of the Board adjudicated the petition and recommended a one-year suspension, with “at least” ninety days served as an active suspension and the rest on probation. Any violation of the conditions of probation would result in “reversion to active suspension.” The hearing panel also directed Hickman to obtain a practice monitor during the probationary period, complete fifteen additional hours of estate-management continuing legal education (“CLE”) and three additional hours of ethics CLE, and pay the costs of the matter. Neither Hickman nor the Board appealed. The Board petitioned this Court for an order enforcing the hearing panel’s judgment. Exercising our authority under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 15.4, we determined that the punishment imposed by the hearing panel appeared too lenient and proposed to increase it. After carefully considering the entire record, “with a view to attaining uniformity of punishment throughout the State and appropriateness of punishment under the circumstances of each particular case,” Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 15.4(b), we affirm the hearing panel’s one-year suspension but modify the judgment to impose six months of active suspension followed by six months on probation. We also clarify that the period of probation imposed should be fixed rather than indefinite and that violation of a condition of probation does not automatically result in reversion of the probationary period to active suspension. We affirm the decision of the hearing panel in all other respects.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. During World War II, the federal government played a significant role in American oil and gasoline production, often telling refineries what to produce and when to produce it. It also rationed crude oil and refining equipment, prioritized certain types of production, and regulated industry wages and prices. All of this affected the operations of American oil companies at the time. But did it make the United States a refinery “operator” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601–75? We hold that it did not and reverse the district court’s contrary determination. 

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. Jennifer Ohlinger was arrested on charges of burglary and receiving stolen property and brought to the Southeastern Ohio Regional Jail (“SEORJ”). On the morning of June 25, 2018, after Ohlinger struck her head, briefly lost consciousness, suffered seizures, and urinated on herself, the jail nurse ordered a blood draw and gave her an ibuprofen instead of sending her to the hospital. A day later, she was dead. After Ohlinger’s death, her daughter, Kelsea Mercer, as administrator of Ohlinger’s estate, sued for the alleged violation of Ohlinger’s constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for wrongful death under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2125.02. The district court granted summary judgment to Nurse James Gray, II, Officer Charity Lowery, and Officer Amista Jarvis (collectively, “Defendants”). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Nurse Gray and affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Officers Jarvis and Lowery.