The TBA Health Law Section remains one of the top health care bars in the U.S., benefitting from Tennessee's booming health care sector. The section enjoys a concentration of industry experts and leaders at the forefront of the practice, unlike anywhere else in the country. Considering this, the TBA Health Law Section Executive Council created the Member Spotlight series to highlight section members. In this fourth edition, we recognize TBA Health Law Section East Tennessee Delegate Amanda Busby.

What is your background (college, law school, previous professions)?

I am originally from Jackson, Tennessee. I graduated from Lambuth University in Jackson with a Bachelor of Business Administration in Marketing. I graduated from the University of Tennessee in 1998 with a joint law degree and Master of Business Administration (MBA). My MBA concentration is in finance.

I have been in private practice in Knoxville for 25 years. Out of law school, I practiced at Kramer Rayson LLP, and became a partner there in 2005. In 2009, my law partner, Adrienne Anderson, and I formed Anderson Busby PLLC. We are a small firm of four attorneys in downtown Knoxville practicing primarily in the areas of: corporate law, business transactions and litigation; health care transactions and compliance; construction law; real estate law; labor and employment law; arbitration and mediation; and estate planning and probate. We are business lawyers.

How many years have you practiced health law? 

I have practiced health law for 25 years.

Why are you a member of the TBA Health Law Section? 

I am a member of the TBA Health Law Section because it keeps me connected with the best lawyers practicing health law across our state. If someone calls with an issue that is not within my practice area or if I have a conflict, I know who to call and who to refer them to. I also get a lot of referrals from other TBA Health Law Section members as well if there is something outside of their practice area or if they have a conflict.

Another bonus is that as a member of the TBA Health Law Section, I get access to great CLE resources and a substantial discount when attending the annual TBA Health Law Forum, which is recognized as one of the best health law CLE programs in the country. Continue reading...

Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy has dropped up to 40 cases because they involved the five police officers charged in Tyre Nichols’ death. Mulroy also has reduced charges in about 10 cases that involved the same officers, the Daily Memphian reports. The DA's office said the decision followed a review of about 100 cases. He cited a “lack of credibility” from the officers. All five officers have pleaded not guilty to a number of criminal charges, including second-degree murder.

Secretary of State Tre Hargett has named Bledsoe County native and Chattanooga resident Christina Temple as the department’s new chief of staff. Temple will serve as a senior adviser to Hargett and handle legislative affairs. Additionally, Temple will play a critical role in strengthening the department’s relationships within state government. Temple served as the New Hampshire state director for the Republication National Committee during the 2022 election cycle. Before that, she worked as coordinator on the delegates and party organization team on former President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign. As a political consultant at Hill City Strategies, Temple has worked on various political campaigns.

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Julia Smith Gibbons plans to take senior status, Bloomberg Law reports. Gibbons was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush in 2002. She previously had served on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, having been appointed to that court in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan. She was the youngest district judge in the country at the time. Gibbons' decision to take a reduced workload will allow President Joe Biden to appoint a new judge. It will be the fourth opening on the court he has filled.

The Tennessee Bar Foundation has announced important dates for the 2024 IOLTA grant application process. The grant application is now available on the foundation’s website, which also has tips for drafting successful applications. Funding is available for projects that improve the administration of justice or provide legal services. Completed applications must be submitted in hard copy via U.S. mail with a visible postmark dated no later than Sept. 13. IOLTA awards are made possible from the interest earned on lawyers’ pooled trust checking accounts. The foundation predicts that the total grant amount for 2024 will increase significantly over the 2023 total and encourages all organizations, but especially new applicants, to apply.

The ABA’s legal education arm has advanced a proposal that would require all law schools to have written free speech policies as part of the accreditation process, Reuters reports. Schools would develop their own policies but such policies would have to protect the rights of faculty, staff and students to communicate controversial or unpopular ideas; safeguard robust debate or protests; and forbid disruptive activities that hinder free expression or interfere with law school functions. A member of the ABA Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar said the proposal was born out of two concerns: legislative efforts to restrict the teaching of certain subjects and controversial speakers not being allowed to express their opinions on campus.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Jeopardy attaches to an “offence,” for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, only when a court or jury has power to determine the defendant’s guilt or innocence as to that “offence.” Here, an Ohio trial court dismissed a manslaughter charge against Travis Soto, pursuant to his agreement to plead guilty to another charge. Ten years later, in connection with the same incident, the State charged Soto with murder. We agree with the Ohio Supreme Court and the district court that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar that prosecution.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. While facing charges for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c), Defendant David Pennington improperly communicated with witnesses in the case against him. Pennington’s § 1594(c) charge alleged that he participated in a conspiracy to engage in human trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), 1591(b)(1). The government then charged Pennington with witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1), and dismissed the § 1594(c) conspiracy charge when Pennington pleaded guilty to the witness-tampering charge. When the district court sentenced Pennington, it applied the U.S. Sentencing Guideline that corresponds with his witness-tampering conviction, which prompted a series of cross-references to other guidelines. The final guideline in that chain, U.S.S.G. § 2G1.1, applies to certain human-trafficking offenses and supplies two possible base-offense levels. U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 2G1.1(a) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2021). Subsection (a)(1) provides a base-offense level of “34, if the offense of conviction is 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1)”; subsection (a)(2) provides a base-offense level of “14, otherwise.” U.S.S.G. § 2G1.1(a)(1)–(2). Despite the fact that Pennington had not been convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1), and no other guideline permitted a court to treat Pennington as if he had been, the district court used subsection (a)(1)’s base-offense level of thirty-four as its starting point. This was an error. Accordingly, we VACATE Pennington’s sentence and REMAND to the district court for resentencing under the properly calculated Guidelines range.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. In this consolidated appeal, which follows a remand for resentencing, two convicted bank robbers challenge the district court’s decision to redo the guidelines calculations and sentencing proceedings entirely, and to apply a new sentencing enhancement that was not considered or applied in their original sentencing. We affirm.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. On its surface, this appeal concerns an award of attorney fees. It presents, however, issues of ripeness, standing, and mootness that have gone unaddressed through more than five years of litigation. John Doe was an undergraduate student at the University of Michigan (“the University”) who was accused of sexual assault in 2018. Before the University’s investigation had concluded and before any discipline had been issued, he filed a lawsuit alleging that the University’s disciplinary procedures for cases involving sexual assault violated his due-process rights. The district court granted him a preliminary injunction enjoining the disciplinary process from moving forward, and the University appealed, arguing that Doe did not have standing to file his lawsuit and therefore the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. We remanded for reconsideration in light of our decision in Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018), in which we held that the University’s disciplinary procedures violated due process, and in light of the University’s new disciplinary policy implemented in response to that decision. The district court granted in part and denied in part the University’s motion to dismiss and granted in part Doe’s motion for partial summary judgment. The University appealed again, renewing its jurisdictional arguments. Before the appeal could be heard, the complainant decided she no longer wished to participate in the disciplinary process. We determined that the appeal had become moot and vacated the district court’s order granting summary judgment. Doe then moved for attorney fees, which the district court granted, and the University appealed once again. We hold that Doe had standing to sue to seek the release of his transcript, but that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his remaining claims. We further hold that Doe was the prevailing party only as to his due-process claim seeking the release of his transcript. We therefore VACATE the district court’s order and REMAND for recalculation of attorney fees.