TBA's new "Sunrise Series" of early morning CLE offerings continues next week with "10 Ethical Tips from Hollywood Movies." Grab a cup of coffee and enjoy this one-hour webcast reviewing the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility as those rules are depicted in popular movies. Join Joel Oster, the Comedian of Law, as he analyzes the difference between professionalism and ethics and encourages attorneys to view their career as a professional calling. For more information and to register, visit the TBA's website.

The TBA will hold its second annual Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Law (TCAIL2) on Dec. 12 in Nashville, offering a full day of programming focused on the rapidly evolving intersection of AI and legal practice. The conference will run from 8:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. CST and provide up to six dual hours of CLE credit. Sessions will feature live demonstrations of leading AI tools, guidance on navigating ethical and regulatory risks, and strategies for handling AI-generated evidence in court. Speakers include A.J. Bahou, Maura Grossman, Richard Littlehale, Lucian Pera, Neal Pinkston, Bill Ramsey and Oliver Roberts. For more information and to register visit the TBA website.

DAVIS, Circuit Judge. Gustavo Adolfo Osabas-Rivera petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order affirming an immigration judge’s decision finding him ineligible for asylum due to an untimely application and denying on the merits his applications for withholding of removal and protection under Article III of the Convention Against Torture. First, we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s determination that Osabas-Rivera failed to establish extraordinary circumstances warranting waiver of the deadline for his untimely asylum application. And second, we hold that Osabas-Rivera abandoned a dispositive issue as to his withholding-of-removal claim—specifically, whether the Honduran government is unable or unwilling to protect him from gang violence. He does not raise his Convention Against Torture claim before us. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review in part and DISMISS in part.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Stacy Owens pled guilty to criminal contempt, and the district court sentenced her to 11 months in prison. She now challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of her sentence. We reject her arguments and affirm.

A Gibson County jury convicted the Defendant, Joshua Damone Pewitte, of three counts of rape of a child. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eighty years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant broadly challenges whether the election process was sufficient to protect against the risk of a non-unanimous verdict. Specifically, the Defendant raises three inter-related issues regarding the election process on plain error review: (1) the State made its initial election outside the presence of the jury and did not mention its election to the jury until its rebuttal closing argument; (2) the State referenced examples of uncharged conduct during its closing argument; and (3) the language from the trial court’s unanimity instruction was different from the State’s election and closing argument. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Cody R. Mashburn, pled guilty to aggravated burglary and criminal simulation. As part of the plea, the parties agreed that the Defendant would be sentenced to an effective term of ten years, but the trial court would determine the manner of service. After a hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s request for an alternative sentence and imposed a sentence of full confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying an alternative sentence because, among other things, it improperly sentenced the Defendant without considering the results of a validated risk and needs assessment. Upon our review, we agree with the Defendant. Accordingly, we respectfully reverse and vacate the judgments and remand the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.

The Defendant, Michael Thomas Hunter, Jr., was convicted of six counts of aggravated sexual battery of a child less than thirteen years of age, a Class B felony, at a bench trial in the Montgomery County Circuit Court. See T.C.A. § 39-13-504 (2018) (subsequently amended). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve ten years at 100% for each offense, with five of the six sentences to be served consecutively. The court also ordered community supervision for life and placement on the sexual offender registry. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial, (2) the court erred in denying his motion to suppress his post-polygraph statements, (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, and (4) the court erred in sentencing him. We affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for the correction of a clerical error in the offense date on the judgment for Count 6.

The Defendant, Lucian A. Clemmons, appeals from his convictions for first degree premeditated murder, aggravated assault, and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. On appeal, he asserts constitutional and evidentiary claims related to the trial court’s exclusion of prior statements he made to the lead detective following his arrest. Additionally, as to the murder conviction, the Defendant contends that it was error for the trial court to refuse to instruct the jury on self-defense and that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict because the State failed to establish premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a declaratory judgment action in which the plaintiff sought to determine whether the defendant was an heir to the estate. The trial court determined that the defendant was not an heir and divided the estate accordingly amongst the legal heirs. We now affirm.

This appeal concerns a father’s petition to modify a permanent parenting plan to name him as the primary residential parent for his two daughters. The trial court found a material change in circumstance based on, inter alia, the mother’s remarriage and frequent out-of- state travel, and it concluded that modification was in the children’s best interests. This appeal followed. The mother contends that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding of a material change in circumstances. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgment.