This is an appeal from a final order entered on June 6, 2024. According to the appellant, the notice of appeal was mailed to this Court on July 3, 2024, but the notice never arrived at the Appellate Court Clerk’s Office. The appellant provided a tracking number that was allegedly used to mail the notice of appeal, but the tracking information does not demonstrate that the notice was sent via certified mail pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 20 during the thirty-day appeal period. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights to two children. The trial court determined that the mother had abandoned the children by willful failure to make reasonable payments toward the support of the children and ruled that it was in the children’s best interests for the mother’s rights to be terminated. Because we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the ground of abandonment by failure to support and that clear and convincing evidence exists to support that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Buck Orrison from TBA's Member Insurance Solutions sat down with TBA’s Communications Coordinator Azya Thornton and answered members' questions regarding group health insurance in a recorded webinar. Enrollment for TBA's group health insurance is open now through Dec. 13.

The University of Memphis Law Review will host its 2025 symposium "The Ripple Effect: Examining the Supreme Court's Impact on the Public's Confidence in the Judicial Branch" on Feb. 21 at the law school. The event will explore issues related to public trust in the courts, including judicial transparency and challenges practitioners face in adhering to changes in common law doctrine. For more information, contact Senior Symposium Editor Megan Stillwell at mnstllwl@memphis.edu. 

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Defendant Tarrence Parham pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. During sentencing, the district court concluded that Parham’s prior Tennessee conviction for attempted second-degree murder constituted a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines and thus increased his base offense level. Parham challenges that conclusion on appeal, as well as the district court’s refusal to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds. Because the elements of attempted second-degree murder in Tennessee categorically match the Guidelines’ definition of a “crime of violence,” and because binding precedent forecloses his Second Amendment argument, we affirm.

The court received a petition for rehearing en banc. The original panel has reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision. The petition was then circulated to the full court.* Less than a majority of the judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc.

Therefore, the petition is denied.

Defendant, William Tony Burrell, was indicted for driving under the influence (DUI), possession of a handgun while under the influence, possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, and violation of the implied consent law. After Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained against him during a traffic stop that led to his arrest was denied by the trial court, Defendant entered into negotiated guilty pleas to one count of DUI and one count of possession of a handgun while under the influence. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the parties reserved a certified question of law for appeal under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). After review, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to address the certified question because the certification did not meet the requirements of Rule 37(b)(2) and State v. Preston, 759 S.W.2d 647 (Tenn. 1988), and we dismiss the appeal.

This is the second interlocutory appeal in this case. The claimant asserts he sustained significant head injuries and brain trauma while working at one of the employer’s job sites. The employer denied the claim, contending that the claimant was an independent contractor at the time of the accident. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court denied the claimant’s request for benefits, concluding he had failed to provide sufficient evidence that he would likely prevail at trial in establishing he was an employee. Thereafter, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment accompanied by a statement of undisputed facts, asserting the claimant was unable to prove, as a matter of law, that he was an employee of the defendant at the time of the accident. Following a hearing on the employer’s motion, the trial court determined that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the claimant’s employment status and denied the employer’s motion. The employer appealed. We vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case for the trial court to address the effect, if any, of the claimant’s failure to respond to the employer’s statement of undisputed facts. On remand, the court again denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the employer had failed to meet its initial burden of production as described in Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The employer has appealed. After careful review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order for reasons other than those stated by the court, and we remand the case.

In the wake of Hurricane Helene, organizations that serve victims of natural disasters are continuing to provide updated resources. The National Consumer Law Center has updated some of its natural disaster resources, including free publications for advocates assisting victims of natural disaster and others working to rebuild. In Tennessee, the Tennessee Alliance for Legal Services' website Help4TN and helpline 844-HELP4TN are always available and have specific resources and legal support for storm survivors. Lawyers from across the state are invited to complete this online form to volunteer to help disaster survivors. The TBA Disaster Resources page offers general information for those impacted by disasters, as well as those seeking to provide assistance. The TBA's Helene Disaster Response page has information and resources specific to this disaster.

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a ruling Friday that temporarily halted two permits needed to begin construction on a pipeline project proposed to fuel the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) combined-cycle natural gas facility at the site of the coal-fired Cumberland Fossil Plant that is being retired, the Associated Press reports. The panel's split 2-1 decision prevents Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company LLC from starting to build the 32-mile pipeline through Dickson, Houston and Stewart counties, which was reported to start as soon as this week. TVA’s plans to open more natural gas plants have brought opposition from advocates seeking a redirection from fossil fuels and into solar and other renewable energy. The case is set for oral arguments on Dec. 10.