JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. The trustees of three multi-employer benefit funds (“the Funds”)1 sued Pro Services, Inc. under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 141 et seq., to recover unpaid benefit contributions allegedly owed by Pro Services. The issue on appeal is whether a category of Pro Services’ employees—known as Full-Service Maintenance Technicians (“FMTs”)—performed work covered by the operative collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA” or “Agreement”), triggering Pro Services’ payment obligation to the Funds for the hours worked by the FMTs.

The district court granted Pro Services’ motion for summary judgment—it was undisputed that the FMTs worked in manufacturing, and the court concluded that the CBA covered workers in the construction industry based only on a caption in the CBA. For the reasons stated below, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings.

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs are a group of consumers alleging that defendant Ford Motor Company intentionally submitted false fuel economy testing figures for certain vehicles to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Plaintiffs claim that this, in turn, led the agency to provide an inaccurate fuel economy estimate to consumers, which induced consumers (including plaintiffs) to buy those vehicles. The district court ruled that federal law preempted plaintiffs’ state-law claims. We agree and affirm.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Beaver Street Investments, LLC (“BSI”) commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant Summit County, Ohio (“County”) violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The district court granted the County’s motion to dismiss, holding that BSI’s complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. We REVERSE and REMAND for the reasons set forth below.

The Defendant, Darries Leon Jackson, was convicted by a Hawkins County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Defendant raises five issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the Defendant’s shooting of the victim’s daughter in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (3) whether the trial court erred by allowing the Defendant’s wife to testify about conversations with the Defendant in violation of the Defendant’s marital privilege; (4) whether the jury’s overhearing of jury-out proceedings deprived the Defendant of his right to a fair trial; and (5) whether the Defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Monroe County jury convicted the Defendant, Steven Shawn Bowen, of driving under the influence, third offense, driving on a revoked license, second offense, and violation of the financial responsibility for a motor vehicle statute. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it: (1) “refused to allow [the Defendant] a court reporter;” (2) denied his motion to dismiss based on the State’s failure to preserve video footage of the stop and arrest; (3) denied his motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations; and (4) admitted the official toxicology report in the absence of witnesses to establish chain of custody for the blood sample. Finally, the Defendant claims that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, Darries Leon Jackson, was convicted by a Hawkins County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Defendant raises five issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the Defendant’s shooting of the victim’s daughter in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (3) whether the trial court erred by allowing the Defendant’s wife to testify about conversations with the Defendant in violation of the Defendant’s marital privilege; (4) whether the jury’s overhearing of jury-out proceedings deprived the Defendant of his right to a fair trial; and (5) whether the Defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Buyer of property at delinquent tax sale filed suit against the property’s former owner to quiet title. The former owner filed an answer and counterclaim, alleging, lack of notice concerning the underlying delinquent tax lawsuit and violation of her due process rights. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice, concluding the counterclaim was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations for invalidating tax sales, and ruled for the buyer in the quiet title action. We hold that the former owner failed to institute a legal challenge to the tax sale within the limitations period despite having adequate notice of the sale. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

The Petitioner, Alvin Stewart, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for aggravated rape, aggravated assault, and domestic assault and his effective twenty-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Travis Smith, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for rape of a child. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his claims alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Petitioner argues that trial counsel was ineffective by (1) failing to meet with and keep the Petitioner informed, (2) failing to object on Confrontation Clause grounds to exclusion of the victim’s testimony about an indecent exposure incident that occurred at the courthouse during the Petitioner’s trial and failing to preserve the issue for appeal, (3) failing to find and prepare witnesses, and (4) failing to properly cross-examine witnesses. The Petitioner additionally argues that he is entitled to relief under the cumulative error doctrine. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Gavin Tyler Sheets, pled guilty to the offenses of vehicular homicide by recklessness and reckless endangerment. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of six years to serve in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request for judicial diversion. He also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order an alternative sentence to incarceration. We respectfully disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court.