The defendant, DeAnthony D. Hart, challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for the unlawful possession of cocaine, the unlawful possession of a firearm and evading arrest. On our review, we respectfully affirm each of the defendant’s convictions. However, we remand the case for entry of corrected judgments showing the merger of offenses ordered by the trial court.

A pro se petitioner seeks accelerated interlocutory review of an order denying a motion for recusal. Because the filing does not comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we dismiss the appeal.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Richard Williams violated the conditions of release that a district court imposed after it found him not guilty of an alleged crime by reason of insanity. Placing the burden on Williams, the court found that Williams posed “a substantial risk” of harm to the public and committed him to the custody of the attorney general. 18 U.S.C. § 4243(g). We affirm.

PER CURIAM. Curt Russell Cannamela, a pro se federal prisoner, moves for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He also moves for default judgment against the government for its alleged untimeliness in responding to his motion. We deny both motions.

Appellant and appellee were involved in a romantic relationship during which time appellee adopted her biological grandson. After appellee ended the relationship with appellant, appellant filed a petition to adopt appellee’s grandson. The trial court dismissed appellant’s petition with prejudice on its conclusion that appellant did not have standing to file an adoption petition. Discerning no error, we affirm. We grant appellee’s motion to declare appellant’s appeal frivolous and award her damages.

Frank Delmar Raines Jr., defendant, was indicted for rape, aggravated kidnapping and violating the sex offender registry. The third count of the indictment, charging defendant for violating the sex offender registry was severed prior to trial. After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of attempted rape and attempted aggravated kidnapping. The trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years on each offense and ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. Defendant’s motion for new trial was denied and this appeal followed. On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentence. Because we determine that the evidence was sufficient and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to an effective sentence of 30 years, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, because there is no judgment form in the record for the charge for violation of the sex offender registry, we remand to the trial court for entry of the same.

Petitioner, DeMorris Sanchez McKenzie, sought relief from his convictions and effective life sentence for first degree premeditated murder, being a felon in possession of a firearm and driving on a revoked license. Petitioner alleged that he received the ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The state appeals the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence recovered during the search of the car in which the defendant was a passenger. The state asserts that the trial court erred because the scent of marijuana provided probable cause for the search regardless of the possibility that legal hemp was the source of the odor. After review, we conclude the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for suppression, reinstate the indictments against the defendant and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

This appeal arises out of a settlement agreement between the parties that resolved the distribution of the decedent’s estate’s assets. Under the settlement agreement, appellant agreed to receive $1,800,000 from a joint brokerage account in his name and the decedent’s name. Appellant alleged that he was entitled to $1,800,000 outright and was not required to pay the capital gains taxes associated with the disbursement of such funds. Appellant also alleged that he was entitled to post-judgment interest on the $1,800,000. The trial court concluded that appellant was responsible for the capital gains taxes associated with the disbursement and that appellant was not entitled to post-judgment interest on the same. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The defendant, Russell Davis, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Specifically, the defendant argues that his sentence is illegal because the state failed to file timely and proper notices of enhanced punishment and because he was improperly classified as a Range II offender. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.