CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. A confidential informant notified officers that Antwone Sanders was dealing drugs from a nearby apartment. The informant then engaged in two controlled drug buys with Sanders. On both occasions, officers observed Sanders drive from the buy location to the apartment in question. The officers detailed this information in an affidavit submitted to a judge and secured a warrant to search the apartment. The search unearthed contraband sufficient to support several federal gun and drug possession charges. Sanders moved to suppress the discovered items. When his motion was denied, Sanders pleaded guilty, preserving in part his right to appeal, which he then exercised.

Longstanding Fourth Amendment principles guide our review of the search warrant’s propriety. One, we examine the underlying officer affidavit with the understanding that demonstrating probable cause to justify a search does not require mathematical certainty. Two, we owe deference to the judge who found sufficient cause to issue the warrant. Viewing Sanders’s appeal in this way, we see no error in the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. Nor did the district court err by denying Sanders’s discovery requests. Accordingly, we affirm.

PER CURIAM. Tennessee law permits many convicted felons to vote, but it prohibits many others from exercising the franchise. When processing registration forms submitted by felons, then, state election officials must distinguish applicants who are eligible from those who are not. To facilitate this review, these officials require some felon applicants to submit records with their registration forms to confirm their eligibility. In this suit, the Tennessee Conference of the NAACP alleged that this so-called “Documentation Policy” for felon applicants violated the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). A district court recently agreed and permanently enjoined the policy in the middle of the 2024 election cycle. Tennessee’s Secretary of State and Coordinator of Elections seek a stay of this injunction pending appeal.

We grant the stay for two reasons. First, the injunction triggers the Supreme Court’s “Purcell principle,” which instructs federal courts not to disrupt state election rules close to an election. See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4–5 (2006) (per curiam). And here, the district court issued its injunction less than a month before the looming July 2 registration deadline for an August election. Second, the NAACP likely did not present enough evidence to prove its standing to challenge the Documentation Policy. The NAACP claimed that the policy forced it to divert its resources to help those convicted of felonies track down the records that they need to register. But the conclusory declaration that the NAACP used to support this theory appears to lack the “specific facts” that the NAACP needed to show its entitlement to summary judgment on this standing question. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (citation omitted).

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. In 1987, a Michigan state court sentenced seventeen-year-old Michael Kitchen to forty-two to sixty years in prison. Under Michigan law, Kitchen is not eligible for parole until he completes his minimum sentence. Mich. Comp. Laws § 791.234(1). This means he will not be considered for parole until he is nearly sixty. Kitchen brought a pro se § 1983 suit challenging the statute against Michigan’s governor, the Department of Corrections Director, and the chair of the Parole Board. He alleges that Michigan’s parole statute violates his Eighth Amendment rights because it effectively keeps him in prison for life without parole. Defendants’ chief response is that Kitchen’s case must be brought through habeas corpus, not § 1983. Or they argue that Kitchen’s sentence satisfies the Constitution because he is not serving a life sentence. The district court sided with Kitchen. But for the reasons laid out below, we disagree with the district court and REVERSE and REMAND.

The Knoxville Bar Association (KBA) Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Award recognizes a legal organization that best demonstrates outstanding leadership to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in furtherance of the KBA Strategic Inclusion Plan. Nominations must be submitted online through the KBA website by 5 p.m. on July 31. Learn more here.

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. This case arises from a 2016 catastrophic wildfire in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Eastern Tennessee that spread into the City of Gatlinburg and Sevier County, Tennessee, resulting in the destruction of over 2,500 structures and the death of 14 people. Appellant insurance companies paid claims to policy holders and then filed claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), against the National Park Service (NPS), alleging negligence for failure to follow multiple mandatory fire-management protocols in three major respects and for the failure to issue mandatory warnings to the public.

The government filed a motion, under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, on grounds that it was immune from suit under the discretionary-function exception to the FTCA. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). The district court granted the motion on all three claims relating to fire-management protocols, but denied the motion on claims relating to the duty to warn. The insurance companies appealed, and the government cross-appealed.

A Dyer County jury found the Defendant, Gerald Myers, guilty of attempted second degree murder and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions because he acted in self-defense. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit seeking to break up entertainment industry giant Live Nation and its Ticketmaster unit could go to trial in early 2026. At the first hearing in the antitrust lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian called the timeline "appropriate" given the scope of the case, but did not set a firm date. Live Nation said it would push to transfer the case to Washington, D.C., where a judge weighed and approved a consent decree in 2010 letting the merger take effect, Reuters reports. The state of Tennessee joined the suit in May.

Defendant, Ambreia Tavaris Washington, was convicted in a bifurcated trial by a Madison County jury of attempted first degree murder where the victim suffered serious bodily injury (count one), unlawful employment of a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony (count two), three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony crime of violence (counts three, four, and five), unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony drug offense (count six), and two counts of unlawfully employing a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony after having been previously convicted of a dangerous felony (counts seven and eight). Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sixty-three-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that because there was insufficient evidence of serious bodily injury, his conviction in count one should be reduced to attempted first degree murder without the serious bodily injury sentencing enhancement, and that the trial court erred in imposing discretionary consecutive sentencing. Following review of the entire record, oral arguments, briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Pro se petitioner, Curtis Keller, appeals the summary dismissal of his second petition seeking error coram nobis relief.1 Upon our review, we affirm.

The Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference is reserving an official opinion about the Republican-led push to oust Shelby County District Attorney General Steve Mulroy, the Daily Memphian reports. The group says it will wait until state Sen. Brent Taylor, R-Memphis, who has spearheaded the move, files an official resolution. “At this point, it is impossible to know what specific issues or allegations may be alleged in Sen. Taylor’s proposed resolution until it is made known. Until such a resolution is filed and the conference has an opportunity to read, review and analyze the same, we reserve comment,” Conference President Bryant Dunaway told the paper. One individual district attorney, Frederick Agee in the 28th Judicial District, has spoken out against the effort, criticizing those who would distract Mulroy from his official duties.