SCOTT W. DALES, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. Had the principal witness in this matter survived his deposition long enough to submit to cross-examination, the adversary proceeding to disallow or recharacterize the claim at issue may have turned out differently. The key witness, however, did not survive long enough to complete his direct examination, let alone submit to cross-examination. So, in an unremarkable exercise of its discretion under the rules, the Bankruptcy Court declined to admit his incomplete testimony. Such are the risks of litigation.

Consequently, after trial in the underlying adversary proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court entered judgment allowing Proof of Claim No. 1 originally filed by Cecelia Financial Management, LLC (the “Claim”) over the objection of chapter 11 debtor-in-possession Insight Terminal Solutions, LLC (“ITS”). The court found that ITS failed to rebut the presumption of validity and amount of the Claim that arose under Bankruptcy Rule 3001(f), rejecting ITS’s effort to disallow the Claim (1) for want of consideration, or (2) as a disguised equity contribution. ITS appealed from the judgment and, finding no reversible error, we AFFIRM.

This matter involves an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, from the Washington County Circuit Court’s denial of a motion to recuse filed by the appellant. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal and other filings submitted by the appellant, we determine that the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 10B. We therefore affirm the trial court’s ruling.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Both parents appeal the trial court’s determination of the existence of statutory grounds to terminate their rights, as well as its conclusion that termination is in their child’s best interests. The father also challenges whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for in-person attendance at trial. Upon our review of the record, we affirm.

The defendant, Gemeyal Strowder, entered an open plea to aggravated robbery, and the trial court imposed a sentence of eighteen years’ incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court failed to consider applicable mitigating factors. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Darrius Levon Robinson, appeals from his guilty-pleaded conviction for attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-210 (2018) (second degree murder); 39-12-101 (2018) (criminal attempt). The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve the agreed upon eight-year, Range I sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends the court erred by denying alternative sentencing and abused its discretion by failing to consider appropriate sentencing factors. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Uel Pearson, was convicted by a Gibson County jury of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony after having been previously convicted of a dangerous felony for which he received an effective term of life imprisonment plus thirty years. On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in excluding the recorded interviews of two witnesses; and (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial based on juror misconduct. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Fayette County Circuit Court sentenced the Defendant, Leroy Moreno, as a Range I offender to nine years at thirty percent in the Tennessee Department of Correction following his guilty-pleaded conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver between one-half gram and twenty-six grams. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing the Defendant above the minimum sentence in his range and by denying him probation. Regarding the length of his sentence, the Defendant specifically contends that the trial court had no basis to deviate from the minimum sentence due to the Defendant’s minimal criminal history and the enhancement and mitigating factors’ offsetting each other. He further argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider the statistical information provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) regarding sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee. Relative to the trial court’s denial of probation, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying probation when he accepted responsibility for his conduct and had no previous probation violations. Additionally, he contends that the trial court erred by denying probation because basing its denial on the need for deterrence and the seriousness of the offense was not supported by the record. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal concerns termination of parental rights. Maternal grandparents Chaunta C. (“Grandmother”) and Thomas C. (“Petitioners,” collectively) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Bethany U. (“Mother”) to her minor children Ember H. and Erowynn H. (“the Children,” collectively). After a hearing, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating Mother’s parental rights on grounds of abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to support, failure to manifest, and persistent conditions. Mother appeals, arguing among other things that Petitioners prevented her from visiting the Children. We vacate the ground of persistent conditions. However, we find, as did the Juvenile Court, that the three other grounds were proven by clear and convincing evidence. We find further by clear and convincing evidence, as did the Juvenile Court, that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. We thus affirm as modified, resulting in affirmance of the termination of Mother’s parental rights to the Children.

Senior U.S. District Judge Robert Leon Jordan died on Feb. 27 at age 89. Jordan served in the U.S. Army from 1954 until 1956. He earned a bachelor's degree in 1958 from the University of Tennessee and his law degree in 1960 from the University of Tennessee College of Law. Jordan began his law practice in Nashville with the firm of Goodpasture, Carpenter, Dale and Woods before becoming a partner in the law firm of Bryant, Price, Brandt, Jordan and Fox in Johnson City in 1971. In 1980, then-Gov. Lamar Alexander appointed him to Tennessee’s Chancery Court, and he was elected to a full term in 1982. Jordan was confirmed to the federal bench in 1988 and served as senior judge from 2001 until a few months ago. He served for several years as chairman of the planning committee of the Sixth Circuit Judicial Conference, which honored him in June 2001 for his leadership. At the Judicial Conference in 2004, Jordan was elected president of the Sixth Circuit District Judges Association. He was also instrumental in the formation of the Federal Bar Association of the Court’s Northeastern Division. In December 2014, he was presented the Judicial Excellence Award by the Knoxville Bar Association. Judge Jordan’s beloved wife of 67 years, Dottie, died at the age of 91 just over two months ago. Arrangements are pending.

This semester, Lincoln Memorial University's Duncan School of Law is offering the Police Law, Policy and Practices seminar for upper-level law students. The seminar is offered in collaboration with four other American Bar Association (ABA) Legal Education and Police Practices Consortium member law schools: Memphis, Penn State Dickinson, Quinnipiac and Roger Williams. Fifty students from all five law schools are enrolled in the course. Approximately 40 law enforcement officers are scheduled to participate, including several officers from the Knoxville Police Department.