Pass rates on the February 2024 bar exam are trending up, following what has been a multi-year slide in many states. Reuters reports that among the 42 jurisdictions that have reported February results thus far, 31 have a higher overall pass rate than in February of 2023 according to data, compiled by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE). However, only 15 had pass rates above 50%, according to the NCBE data. Tennessee had a 40% pass rate. Nationwide, 19,496 people took the February bar.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has announced that it will move to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I drug (like heroin and LSD) to a less dangerous Schedule III drug (like ketamine and some anabolic steroids). The Associated Press reports that the proposal would recognize the medical uses of cannabis and acknowledge it has less potential for abuse than some of the most dangerous drugs. However, it would not legalize marijuana outright for recreational use. Schedule III drugs are controlled substances and subject to rules and regulations, and those who traffic them without permission still can face federal criminal prosecution.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. One day after he pleaded guilty to violating a Tennessee domestic-violence law, the federal government initiated removal proceedings against Jose Yanel Sanchez-Perez. Ultimately, an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals determined that Sanchez-Perez could not seek cancellation of removal due to this conviction. The Board of Immigration Appeals improperly determined that Sanchez-Perez pleaded guilty to a crime of violence, however. Accordingly, we GRANT Sanchez-Perez’s petition for review, VACATE the Board’s order of removal, and REMAND to the Board for proceedings consistent with our opinion.

SILER, Circuit Judge. Like any other criminal defendant, Carlos Brown has a right to be brought to trial within seventy days of his arraignment—absent, of course, the Speedy Trial Act’s laundry list of exclusions. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq. Yet Brown alleges that, in the 1,176 days between his arraignment and his guilty plea, his right to a speedy trial was twice violated. Either violation would warrant the dismissal of his indictment. We consider whether these violations were covered by the Act’s exclusions. Id. § 3161(c)(1), (h)(1).

The first violation involved a thirty-six-day delay in transporting Brown from Ohio to the Federal Medical Center (“FMC”), Lexington for his competency evaluation. This delay, according to the district court, was excludable. It denied Brown’s motion to dismiss. The second violation involved a twenty-one-day period after the denial of Brown’s first motion to dismiss. Again, the district court denied Brown’s motion to dismiss. It instead entered a twenty-one-day retroactive ends-of-justice continuance. We find that the district court erred in denying both motions, vacate his conviction, and remand to the district court to determine whether his indictment should be dismissed with or without prejudice.

American Bar Association (ABA) President Mary Smith was in Nashville recently on business and had the opportunity to get together informally with members of the local legal community. She was welcomed to Tennessee by Nashville lawyer Jonathan Cole, who has been nominated to be the next chair of the ABA House of Delegates, the second ranking officer position in the ABA. Cole, who practices at Baker Donelson, will take office at the group’s annual meeting in August. Cole also is chair of the TBA’s ABA Resource Committee. A reception for Smith was held at Baker Donelson. See photos from the gathering.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, carjacking, unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, unlawful possession of a handgun as a convicted felon, and the lesser included offense of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life plus thirty years. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court erred when it failed to give an accomplice jury instruction for a witness, Duraejia Clark; (2) the convicting evidence is insufficient because the State failed to corroborate the accomplice’s testimony; and (3) cumulative error requires reversal. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Jonathan W. Langford, Defendant, filed a Rule 36.1 motion claiming that requiring him to register as a sex offender and to participate in “community supervision” subjects him “to additional punishment after completion of his sentence” in violation of the double jeopardy provisions of the United States Constitution and Tennessee Constitution. The trial court found that the motion failed to state a colorable claim and summarily dismissed the motion. We affirm.

In 1990, a Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Rhynuia L. Barnes, of premeditated first-degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of life in prison. The Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction. He then unsuccessfully filed a petition for post-conviction relief and three petitions for writ of error coram nobis, as well as a motion to exhume his father’s body and for fingerprint analysis. In 2023, the Petitioner filed his second post-conviction fingerprint analysis petition asking: (1) that the TBI enter the latent prints found on the murder weapon into an online fingerprint database; and (2) that the court order testing of his deceased father’s palm prints against the known palm print on the murder weapon. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

A homebuilder sought to modify, correct, or vacate an arbitration award. It claimed the arbitrator exceeded his powers in failing to award attorney’s fees and penalties under its contract with the homeowner. The chancery court denied the requested relief and awarded the homeowner attorney’s fees for defending against the homebuilder’s motion. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Appellee Dominion Real Estate, LLC (“Dominion”) filed a malicious prosecution action against the Wise Group, Inc. (the “Wise Group”), the Lux Development Group, LLC (the “Lux Group”) (together with the Wise Group, “Wise and Lux”), and Alan Wise (together with Wise and Lux, “the Wise Defendants” or “Appellants”). The trial court dismissed Dominion’s case, and Dominion appealed. In their brief, the Wise Defendants asked this Court to award frivolous appeal damages. Dominion subsequently moved to dismiss the appeal. Although this Court granted the motion to dismiss, it reserved the issue of frivolous appeal damages, which is the sole issue addressed herein. Because Dominion’s appeal had no reasonable chance of success, it was frivolous, and the Wise Defendants are entitled to damages. Accordingly, we grant the Wise Defendants’ motion and remand the case for calculation of the Wise Defendants’ reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in defending this appeal and for entry of judgment on same.