KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Dan Carman, Coin Center, Raymond Walsh, and Quiet Industries Corp. (“plaintiffs”) regularly transact in cryptocurrency for both personal and business matters. They enjoy the privacy and anonymity that cryptocurrency transactions provide. So when Congress passed amendments to 26 U.S.C. § 6050I, a law that now requires reporting of certain cryptocurrency transactions to the federal government, plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against the United States and the agencies in charge of implementing and enforcing § 6050I.1 The district court found that it was without jurisdiction to consider the merits of plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges to the amended § 6050I, because plaintiffs’ claims are either not ripe for adjudication or because the plaintiffs lack standing. Although the district court was correct that one of plaintiffs’ claims is not ripe, several of plaintiffs’ claims are justiciable today. Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the district court’s judgment, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In this case involving termination of the father's parental rights to his child, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence of statutory grounds supporting termination. The trial court further determined that clear and convincing evidence has established that termination of the father's parental rights was in the child's best interest. The father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court's judgment in its entirety, including termination of the father's parental rights.

Defendant appeals the trial court’s decision to deny its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and grant the plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award. Because we conclude that the plaintiff failed to establish that the trial court had either specific or general jurisdiction over this matter, we reverse.

A Hardin County jury convicted the Defendant, Jordan Dane Weatherspoon, of one count of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine, and he later pleaded guilty to two additional counts of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of ten years of incarceration as a Range I offender. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his request for an alternative sentence. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

In 2006, the Defendant, Alejandro Avila-Salazar, pled guilty to second degree murder and attempted aggravated rape. Seventeen years later, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea or, alternatively, to modify his sentences. The trial court denied the motion, finding it to be untimely. On appeal, the Defendant raises different issues. He argues that an amended judgment for his attempted aggravated rape conviction is improper because the sentence is expired. He also asserts that his conviction for second degree murder is invalid because it violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Upon our review, we conclude that the Defendant did not raise these issues in the trial court and has thus waived them on appeal. We respectfully affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A Lake County jury convicted the Defendant, James Phillip Rickman, of one count of attempted first degree premeditated murder resulting in serious bodily injury, one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and three counts of aggravated assault. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-one years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for attempted first degree murder with serious bodily injury and one count of aggravated assault; and (2) the trial court erred when it dismissed his motion to suppress. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner, Michael D. Lewis, pleaded guilty to four counts of statutory rape by an authority figure and received an effective sentence of twenty years’ incarceration. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner claims that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel: (1) was unprepared for trial and failed to develop a defense; (2) failed to inform Petitioner “of the potential merits of his motion to suppress the State’s evidence” before Petitioner entered a plea agreement; and (3) failed to contact material witnesses named by Petitioner that may have benefited his defense. We affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

In 2020, the Defendant, Dominque Justice, entered an open plea to twenty-eight counts of rape of a child, twenty counts of aggravated statutory rape, and forty-eight counts of incest. Eight months later, the Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea which the trial court denied. At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of one hundred and five years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that his motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted and that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

This is the second appeal in this case involving severe injuries. The employee worked at a horse farm located in Franklin, Tennessee. The position required the employee to travel to horse shows in other states, and, while in South Carolina for such a show, a horse kicked the employee in the head. The employee received immediate emergency medical treatment as well as extensive rehabilitation for her traumatic brain injury at facilities located in Georgia and Nebraska. During the course of the employee’s treatment and recovery, disputes arose over the employee’s competency and who should represent her interests. A Georgia probate court ultimately appointed a conservator and a guardian ad litem for the employee. The conservator hired a lawyer in Tennessee to represent the employee in her workers’ compensation claim, and the conservator, the employee’s attorney, and the employer’s attorney reached an agreement to settle the employee’s workers’ compensation claim under Tennessee law. Following a hearing at which the employee was not present, the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims approved the settlement. Thereafter, upon receipt of the settlement documents, the employee, acting in a self-represented capacity, filed a motion to set aside the settlement. The trial court denied the motion, determining the employee did not have standing to make the motion as she was still a ward in an active conservatorship in Georgia and was represented by counsel in Tennessee. The employee appealed, and we remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether Tennessee could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the workers’ compensation case. After a hearing, the trial court determined it did have subject matter jurisdiction. We then dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial court that the employee did not have standing under the facts of the case. Two years later, the employee again filed a motion to set aside the settlement, averring that the conservatorship had been terminated and the guardianship extinguished by a Missouri court and presenting the trial court with court orders to that effect. The trial court determined that although the employee was no longer in an active conservatorship and was no longer incapacitated, the employee had not filed her motion to set aside the settlement within a reasonable time and thus denied the motion. The employee has appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify it as final.

A Nashville postal worker has been placed on leave after a viral TikTok video showed the employee dumping mail into a dumpster. The USPS is under fire following the incident, with the public demanding accountability. The video, which has garnered millions of views, shows the worker repeatedly tossing bins of mail into a dumpster. "This type of behavior within the Postal Service is not tolerated and is a rare occurrence," Public Information Officer Charlene Cerra told The Tennessean. The incident has raised concerns about mail security and service reliability and the USPS Office of the Inspector General is conducting an investigation into the matter.