CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. More than two decades ago, Mary Jane Johns kidnapped her ex-girlfriend at gunpoint and sexually assaulted her. Following her arrest and pretrial release, Johns absconded from federal law enforcement, staying on the lam for roughly 16 years. When the law eventually caught up to Johns, she was convicted of three separate federal offenses, resulting in a 168-month sentence. Intervening Supreme Court jurisprudence, however, cast doubt on the viability of one of those charges. Accordingly, the district court resentenced Johns to 151 months in prison for the remaining charges. Johns asserts that her new sentence is unreasonable. For the reasons stated, we affirm.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. The placement of a bump stock on a semiautomatic rifle causes the rifle to function essentially like a machinegun by dramatically increasing the rate of fire. And the possession of a machinegun is a criminal offense under the Gun Control Act of 1968. This raises the question of whether a bump stock is a machinegun “part” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The question is a close one on which reasonable jurists have disagreed, a disagreement caused by ambiguities in how the applicable statute defines the term “machinegun.”

An Act of Congress could clear up the ambiguities, but so far Congress has failed to act. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (the ATF) has been on both sides of this issue, with its current regulation (the Rule) banning bump stocks as a machinegun part. In this situation, the rule of lenity that is applicable to criminal offenses requires us to rule in favor of Hardin. We therefore REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This case involves a dispute over a parcel of real property. Because of the profound deficiencies with Appellants’ brief, we dismiss the appeal and remand the case to the trial court for a determination of damages under Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-1-122.

Two law firms seek accelerated interlocutory review of the denial of their motion to disqualify the trial judge. Because there is a reasonable basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality, we reverse and remand for reassignment.

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Tywan Sykes was convicted of a series of offenses related to child pornography and enticement of a minor. On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his Facebook account and mobile phone; that the district court erroneously admitted evidence of a past sex-offense conviction; that there was insufficient evidence to convict on all charges; and that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable. We AFFIRM.

A mother appeals an order setting aside a default judgment. Because the order does not resolve all of the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

A mother relocated less than fifty radial miles, but more than fifty driving miles, from the father. The trial court held that the parental relocation statute applied because the mother relocated more than fifty miles away and, even if she had not, she moved close enough to fifty miles that application of the relocation statute was appropriate. We find that the radial distance should be used to determine whether the relocation statute is triggered. By that standard, the mother did not move more than fifty miles away, and the relocation statute does not apply. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s decision.

For the week of April 17, 2023 - April 21, 2023

After the trial court issued a temporary injunction affirming a trust’s appointment of a new trustee, the former trustee’s attorney in other matters sent a letter to financial institutions holding trust assets. The letter stated that the attorney represented the trust, construed the trial court’s order as being without factual basis or legal authority, and requested the institutions freeze the trust’s assets. Trust beneficiaries and the new trustee brought a motion to hold the former trustee and the attorney in civil contempt. Finding that the former trustee was unaware of the letter, but that the attorney meant the letter to thwart the efforts of the new trustee in violation of the trial court’s order, the trial court granted the motion only as to the attorney, who was ordered to pay attorney’s fees related to remedying the effects of the letter. Discerning no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment, we affirm.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellee SHH Holdings, LLC, sued defendant-appellant Allied World Specialty Insurance Company (“Allied World”) after Allied World declined insurance coverage for SHH’s settlement of certain employees’ retaliation claims under the False Claims Act. SHH sued for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, seeking a declaratory judgment and money damages. The district court granted summary judgment to SHH on its breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims and to Allied World on the bad faith claim. The district court also granted attorney fees to SHH, finding that Ohio law permits fees when an insured party is forced to litigate to obtain coverage. Allied World appeals both the grant of summary judgment and the award of attorney fees. Because the plain language of SHH’s policy excluded coverage for the retaliation claims, we reverse.