THAPAR, Circuit Judge. An Immigration Judge denied Miguel Angel Moctezuma-Reyes’s application for cancellation of his removal from the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Immigration Judge and the BIA’s interpretation of the operative statute was correct, and their application of the statute to these facts doesn’t warrant reversal. We deny the petition for review.

From August through November of this year, Belmont College of Law’s public interest and pro bono clinics provided $35,150 in free legal services –– calculated based on a standard rate of $250 an hour. Across 10 clinics, these services led to transformative outcomes for clients, including 24 powers of attorney for care of a minor child completed, 405 non-conviction expungement filings, 30 estate planning documents prepared, over 110 clients assisted and more than half a million dollars in court fees waived. This year, the law school set a goal of expanding its clinic offerings into new practice areas to better serve its Nashville neighbors. By also expanding its network of partnering organizations, Belmont Law’s public interest program is able to more readily identify communities in need, which were not previously on its radar, the school reports.

The Defendant, Colton Shane Sutliffe, was convicted in the Maury County Circuit Court of eighteen offenses, including multiple counts of aggravated rape, rape, and incest, and received a total effective sentence of thirty years, six months to be served at one hundred percent. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the juvenile court erred by transferring him to circuit court to be tried as an adult, that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, and that his effective sentence is excessive. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration on whether a settlement agreement she signed in 2016 and amended in 2017 still requires her silence on the details of the alleged sexual abuse of her son in light of the 2018 enactment of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-34-103, which makes such agreements “void and unenforceable as contrary to the public policy of this state.” The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, issued a blanket sealing order, and held that the Attorney General and Reporter did not have to be notified of the action and that the plaintiff’s interpretation of the statute would lead to unconstitutional retrospective application. We reverse the trial court’s grant of the motion to dismiss, vacate the decisions on the remaining issues, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This appeal arises from a complaint filed by Abdolhossain Motealleh (“Plaintiff”) entitled, “Petition for Criminal Conspiracy to Petition David Margulies for Representations.” The trial court dismissed the complaint upon the defendants’ Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.06(b) motion to dismiss for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff appeals that decision. Due to profound deficiencies with Plaintiff’s brief, particularly his failure to comply with Rule 27(a)(4) and (7) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee in several material respects, Plaintiff has waived his right to an appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The defendants, ReMax Tri Star Realty and Jarrod Cruz, (“Defendants”) contend this is a frivolous appeal and seek an award of damages pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-1-122. Having determined that this appeal is devoid of merit, we find the appeal to be frivolous. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to recover their reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in defending this frivolous appeal. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court to make the appropriate award.

In this case involving termination of the father’s and mother’s parental rights to two of their minor children, the trial court determined that two statutory grounds had been proven as to each parent by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further determined that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of the father’s and mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. The father and mother have each appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Defendant, Jonathan Rogers Robertson, was convicted by jury of unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony crime of violence, unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony drug offense, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of forty-five years. Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because the State failed to establish that he possessed the firearm and drug paraphernalia. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court, but remand for merger of counts one and two and entry of corrected judgment forms. We affirm the trial court’s judgments in all other respects.

Petitioner, Osayamien Ogbeiwi, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. This court upheld Petitioner’s conviction on direct appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, Petitioner maintains that his counsel was ineffective in (1) failing to challenge an expanded jury instruction on premeditation at trial and on appeal; (2) advising him to testify regarding self-defense and in failing to request a jury instruction on self-defense and in failing to challenge the lack of an instruction on appeal; and (3) failing to adequately challenge the admission of DNA evidence at trial and on appeal. Petitioner also maintains that he was denied due process due to the State’s failure to provide his capias in discovery during the post-conviction proceedings. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner, Ashley Lenal Crowder, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief from her guilty-pleaded convictions for second degree murder, aggravated child neglect and attempted aggravated child neglect, arguing that she was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel and that her guilty pleas were unknowing and involuntary. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the petition.

The Defendant, Ritika Arora, was charged in the Williamson County Circuit Court with driving under the influence (“DUI”), DUI per se, simple possession, and possession of drug paraphernalia and filed a motion to suppress the results of her blood alcohol test because the search warrant authorizing her blood draw did not expressly authorize chemical analysis of her blood sample. The trial court granted the motion, and the State filed this interlocutory appeal. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the order granting the motion to suppress should be reversed and that the case should be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.