The Petitioner, Kevin Allen Fleming, appeals the Campbell County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of three counts of aggravated vehicular homicide and one count of driving under the influence, fourth offense. 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. We affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Petitioner, Ricky Durham, appeals the dismissal of his post-conviction petition. On appeal, he asserts that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition as untimely without a hearing on the merits of his claims. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Nicklaus Edward Brush, alias, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated kidnapping and domestic assault, arguing that the first count of the indictment failed to charge an offense, that the evidence was insufficient to support his aggravated kidnapping conviction, that the State failed to establish venue, and that the trial court improperly questioned a witness at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Billy and Amanda Lemaster run a towing business in Lawrence County, Kentucky. The County placed their business on its “rotation list” of companies to call when it needed to order a tow. Soon after Phillip Carter began managing the County, Billy Lemaster criticized his decision to fire an employee. According to the Lemasters, this criticism led Carter to orchestrate their removal from the County’s rotation list in violation of the First Amendment. But the district court held that the Lemasters did not produce enough evidence to get a jury trial over whether Lemaster’s criticism motivated Carter’s actions. We disagree and clarify the relevant causation rules in the process. Yet we agree with the district court’s other conclusion that the Lemasters could not hold the County liable for Carter’s actions because they did not tie the actions to any county policy. We thus reverse the court’s grant of summary judgment to Carter but affirm its grant of summary judgment to Lawrence County.

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Zachary Kennedy was sentenced to 210 months in prison after pleading guilty to a charge of conspiracy with intent to distribute various drugs. He appeals his sentence, asserting two guideline scoring errors and a violation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We AFFIRM.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Responding to a “shots fired” call, officers arrived at an apartment, finding blood on the walls and items scattered everywhere. Ivan Crump, who was incoherently mumbling and wearing nothing but a towel, was the only person inside. A protective sweep and subsequent search led the police to find two guns, ammunition, drugs, drug paraphernalia, and several documents bearing Crump’s name. So they arrested him. And while he was behind bars, Crump said on recorded phone calls that he had fired a gun and wanted to get back to drug trafficking. Crump was charged and convicted of possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon under the Armed Career Criminal Act. He now appeals on four grounds. Finding no error, we affirm.

After pleading guilty on September 18, 2018, to three counts of aggravated rape in three separate cases, Patrick Marshall, Defendant, was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 25 years at 100%. Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 in which he argued that his sentences were imposed in contravention of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-523(e)(3), ordering “aggravated rapists” to serve the entire sentence “if the offense occurs on or after July 1, 2012.” It is undisputed that Defendant’s offense dates were before July 1, 2012. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) should allow Defendant to earn sentence reduction credits and entering an order directing the TDOC to allow Defendant to earn sentence reduction credits. Defendant appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgment forms that reflect Defendant is entitled to earn up to 15% sentence reduction credits.

Antonio J. Hurt, Defendant, was indicted by a Rutherford County Grand Jury for attempted first degree murder, employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, aggravated assault, and reckless endangerment after a shooting at a barber shop. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter and employing a firearm during a dangerous felony. The trial court entered a nolle prosequi on the aggravated assault charge, and the State withdrew the reckless endangerment charge. Defendant was sentenced to an effective sentence of 8 years. Defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant filed a pro se premature notice of appeal in the trial court. The trial court denied the motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant filed an untimely notice of appeal in this Court. This Court waived the timely filing of the notice of appeal. On appeal, Defendant complains about the sufficiency of the evidence, the admissibility of certain testimony of two witnesses, and statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument. After a review, we determine the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that Defendant is not entitled to plain error review of the remaining issues. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. However, the matter is remanded to the trial court for entry of a judgment form dismissing the count of the indictment for reckless endangerment.

This is a contract dispute between a doctor and healthcare entities. The trial court awarded summary judgment to the healthcare defendants, and the doctor appeals. We find no basis to overturn the ruling of the trial court.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. In 2020, three individuals opposed the Kentucky Governor’s COVID-19 restrictions on religious gatherings. They received preliminary injunctions against the orders, and the district court awarded them attorney’s fees as prevailing parties. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). We affirm the fees award.