OHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, Eric Vaughn contests special conditions of his supervised release. He argues that the sentencing court improperly delegated its judicial function to the probation office by not providing enough condition specifics. We disagree and AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

Petitioner, Jonathan W. Stephenson, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s order summarily dismissing his fifth petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, Petitioner challenges his convictions for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder, and the legality of his death plus sixty-years effective sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Defendant, Dustin William Russell, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder, reckless endangerment by discharging a firearm into an occupied habitation, and three counts of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. Defendant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of thirty years. On appeal, Defendant claims the trial court gave an improper instruction for second degree murder, the evidence was insufficient to support his second degree murder conviction, and the trial court abused its discretion in its application of an enhancement factor and in its failure to make findings to support partial consecutive sentencing on the dangerous offender factor. Following a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and oral arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Cheatham County jury convicted the Petitioner, Aaron Ostine, of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed an effective life sentence, and this court affirmed the judgments on appeal. State v. Ostine, No. M2013-00467-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 2442988 at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 28, 2014), perm. app. granted (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2014). The Petitioner filed a Rule 11 application, pursuant to the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Our supreme court granted the application and remanded the case for our reconsideration in light of its holding in State v. Jackson, 444 S.W.3d 554 (Tenn. 2014). After considering the facts and circumstances of the case as compared to those in Jackson, this court again affirmed the trial court’s judgment. State v. Ostine, No. M2013-00467- CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 7009058, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 12, 2015), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 23, 2016). The Petitioner timely filed for post-conviction relief based upon claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. The Petitioner appeals, maintaining that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and asserts that the cumulative effect of his trial counsel’s errors entitle him to relief. After review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post- conviction court’s denial of relief.

A homeowner appeals from a jury verdict in a breach of contract action. The homeowner complains of errors in the conduct of the trial, including the exclusion of key evidence. Because the homeowner did not present these issues to the trial court in a motion for a new trial, the issues are waived. And we affirm the judgment.

A property owner filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of metropolitan government ordinances that prevented him from obtaining a permit for a short-term rental property with more than four bedrooms. We have concluded that the property owner’s claims are barred by res judicata.

In this case involving termination of a mother’s and father’s parental rights to their minor child, the trial court found that three statutory grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights and two statutory grounds for termination of the father’s parental rights had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of both parents’ parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Both the mother and father have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The present appeal originates out of a Juvenile Court dependency and neglect proceeding. During the pendency of the case in the Juvenile Court, the Nenana Native Association filed a notice of intervention and averred that the two children at issue in this appeal are “Indian Children” under the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Nenana Native Association requested that the Juvenile Court enter an order acknowledging its status as these children’s tribe, and the Juvenile Court subsequently did so. Although the Nenana Native Association was allowed to intervene as a party in the case, the Juvenile Court later entered an order denying a request that the case be transferred to a tribal court. An appeal was thereafter pursued in the Circuit Court, and the Circuit Court, considering the matter de novo under Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-159(a), also entered an order denying transfer. Although the Nenana Native Association now pursues an appeal of the Circuit Court’s order in this Court, we conclude that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal from the Juvenile Court. Accordingly, we vacate the Circuit Court’s judgment and remand the case back to the Circuit Court with instructions that it remand the matter back to the Juvenile Court for further proceedings.

In this parental termination case, the father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his three children. The trial court found that two grounds for termination had been proven and that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Based on these findings, the court terminated the father’s parental rights. The father appeals. We affirm.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has granted a German family in Morristown a reprieve from deportation for another year. The Romeike family moved to East Tennessee to homeschool their five children for religious reasons after being fined for doing so in Germany, reports the Tennessean. After pushback from the family's attorney Kevin Boden with the Home School Legal Defense Association and public outcry that included a bill being introduced in Congress, ICE in October 2023 delayed the family's deportation until October 2024. An ICE spokesperson said in a statement that the agency determined after a thorough review that the Romeike case "does not meet current enforcement priorities. Accordingly, Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) has approved a one-year order of supervision for the Romeike family."