CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Patricia Levine, an African-American woman, commenced this action under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., alleging that her employer, the United States Postal Service (“USPS”), discriminated against her by failing to promote her on the basis of race. The district court granted USPS’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action. We REVERSE for the reasons set forth below.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Leonard Baugh coordinated a plan to use a gun to steal cocaine from a drug dealer and resell it. Based on this conduct, a federal jury convicted him of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). In accordance with the law at the time, the jury was instructed that either the cocaine conspiracy or the Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy could furnish the predicate offense for the § 924(c) count. The Supreme Court subsequently held that the residual clause pursuant to which Baugh’s Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy conviction qualified as a crime of violence was unconstitutionally vague. Baugh filed a motion to vacate his § 924(c) conviction, arguing that it rested on an invalid predicate. The district court denied that relief. Because there is no reason to believe that the jury based Baugh’s § 924(c) conviction on only his Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy conviction and not also on his cocaine conspiracy conviction, we affirm.

The Defendant, Charles Larry Nichols, III, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence or clerical error, arguing that he was entitled to “street time” credit for the time he served on community corrections but was being supervised by state probation. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that the Defendant was not entitled to the street time credit because he was on supervised probation, not community corrections. However, we remand the case to the trial court for correction of a separate clerical error in the amended judgment of conviction.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee questions the trial court’s conclusion that he did not present sufficient evidence to establish that he is entitled to the requested benefits. The employee alleged he was struck by a forklift and suffered injuries to his upper extremities. After initially authorizing medical care, the employer denied the claim, asserting the alleged incident did not occur as described by the employee. Moreover, the authorized physician opined the employee did not suffer an injury arising primarily out of his employment. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court concluded the employee had not shown he is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits and denied the employee’s request for benefits. The employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.

For the week of April 3, 2023 - April 7, 2023

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Habib Al-Adily, a citizen of Iraq and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was late in returning his rental car to Thrifty-Rent-a-Car (Thrifty). He was indicted under a Michigan statute criminalizing the willful failure to timely return rental property, an offense to which he pleaded guilty and for which he was ordered to pay over $10,000 in restitution to Thrifty. Two Immigration Judges (IJs) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) concluded that these circumstances warranted Al-Adily’s deportation for having been convicted of an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). For the reasons set forth below, we GRANT Al-Adily’s petition for review, REVERSE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND to the BIA with instructions to terminate the removal proceedings against him.

The Petitioner, Cody Ricky Cofer, was convicted in the Cumberland County Criminal Court of two counts of first degree felony murder and one count of attempted especially aggravated robbery and received an effective sentence of two consecutive life terms. The Petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis based on newly discovered evidence, and the coram nobis court denied the petition without a hearing because the petition was untimely. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the coram nobis court erred by summarily denying the petition without first considering whether the statute of limitations should be tolled on due process grounds. The State argues that we should dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner’s notice of appeal also was untimely. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we agree with the State and conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Defendant, Juan Lasean Perry, appeals the denial of his motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, to correct an illegal sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to two children. The trial court concluded that the petitioner proved five statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The court also concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children’s best interest. After a thorough review, we agree that clear and convincing evidence supports three grounds for termination and that termination was in the children’s best interest. So we affirm.