After requesting two state bodies investigate the sentencing decisions of Shelby County District Attorney (DA) Steve Mulroy and Shelby County Criminal Court Judge Paula Skahan, WREG reports that state Sen. Brent Taylor, R-Memphis, is now asking the Senate Judiciary Committee to review Mulroy’s agreements with three outside organizations. Mulroy previously announced consulting agreements with Just City, the Vera Institute and the Justice Innovation Lab. Taylor says that, “Memphians have a right to know if the agreements between the DA’s office and these outside groups are inconsistent with state laws and policies." Mulroy says any allegations of impropriety are baseless and that consulting arrangements with national expert groups are common place.

Alicia Campbell, the director of victim services within the Williamson County District Attorney General’s Office, recently entered a guilty plea to charges of fraudulent use of a debit card, the Tennessean reports. Campbell, who resigned her position in August, entered the plea after investigators discovered she had made 14 personal purchases totaling $1,804.55 using a debit card assigned to the Victims of Crime Assistance Program. Campbell was granted judicial diversion relief, placed on a year probation and ordered to pay restitution. The full investigative report is available from the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury.

Local and state elected officials, members of the local legal community and judges gathered with the family of former Hamilton County judge and state representative Mike Carter this week to unveil his official portrait in the Hamilton County Courts Building. Carter was praised for his four decades of service to the community, which included serving as general counsel for the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office, as a Hamilton County General Sessions judge and as a state representative for District 29. Carter died in 2021. Chattanoogan.com has photos from the ceremony and comments from local officials.

The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to hear a bid by the Biden administration to preserve broader access to the abortion pill, SCOTUSblog reports. The court will review a ruling by a federal appeals court that would significantly restrict, but not eliminate, access to mifepristone, which now accounts for over half of all abortions performed in the United States. A federal judge in Texas suspended federal approval of the drug in 2000 as well as an expansion of its availability in 2016 and 2021. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the ruling on the expansion, but said the challenge to the original approval of the drug came too late. The high court will consider the expansion of availability but will not consider the appellate court’s ruling related to initial approval of the drug.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Proceeding pro se in district court, Lyle Heyward filed a complaint alleging that prison officials frustrated his attempts to celebrate Ramadan in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). He also alleges that officials retaliated against him for filing grievances in violation of the First Amendment. The district court dismissed Heyward’s claims. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Adam Carson of robbing a bank and tampering with a witness; a district court sentenced him to 20 years in prison; and we upheld his convictions and sentence on direct appeal. In these post-conviction proceedings, Carson argues that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to initiate plea negotiations and by committing several trial mistakes. He also argues that he did not knowingly waive his right to testify. Yet Carson’s ineffective-assistance claims fail on prejudice grounds. Even if a dispute of fact exists over whether he asked counsel to look into a plea deal, only speculation supports his claim that the parties would have reached a deal but for counsel’s inaction. The overwhelming evidence of his guilt also shows that counsel’s conduct at trial did not affect the verdict. Lastly, Carson did not object to his counsel’s statement that he did not want to testify. So our cases require us to presume that he knowingly waived this right. And while Carson now asserts that counsel misrepresented his wishes, he cannot rebut our presumption with this after-the-fact allegation. We affirm.

In a prior appeal, we addressed multiple issues connected to a judgment that was entered following a bench trial. Among other things, we affirmed the trial court’s determination that one of the Defendants in this litigation should be held liable for breach of fiduciary duty, but we also rejected multiple issues raised by the Plaintiffs in pursuit of additional relief. As part of our disposition, we remanded the case for further proceedings with respect to matters of costs and expenses under Tennessee Code Annotated section 35-15- 1004, as well as prejudgment interest. After the trial court entered orders on remand addressing these issues, the Plaintiffs filed the present appeal, chiefly arguing (a) that they are entitled to 100% of their costs and expenses and (b) that the trial court erred in the amount of prejudgment interest it awarded them. Having reviewed the record transmitted to us on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Plaintiffs filed suit against a neighboring church and its pastor, alleging violations of local ordinances, as well as nuisance and trespass. The Defendants responded with a petition for dismissal under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA). After the trial court denied Plaintiffs’ attempt to voluntarily dismiss the pastor, the Defendants, in response to a statement by opposing counsel, filed a motion seeking an order of dismissal of the pastor with prejudice. The trial court denied that motion. Before the scheduled hearing on the TPPA petition could occur, the Defendants appealed the trial court’s denial of their motion for an order of dismissal as to the pastor, purportedly proceeding under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-17-106, a provision of the TPPA that allows for an immediate appeal of a grant or denial of a TPPA petition. Because the order being appealed is not a dismissal or a refusal to dismiss a legal action pursuant to the Defendants’ TPPA petition, which is still pending before the trial court, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Appellant appeals the dismissal of his second lawsuit seeking damages and injunctive relief against four defendants allegedly associated with his criminal prosecution. The trial court dismissed the second lawsuit as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm.

This case arises from a forcible entry and detainer proceeding. Because Appellant’s principal brief fails to comply with Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, the appeal is dismissed.