TBA's "Raising the Bar" program will be held Nov. 19 at Baker Donelson in Nashville. Breakfast will begin at 9:15 a.m. with programming from 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. This CLE will address the age-old concept of "the grass is greener on the other side," challenging attendees to think instead that "the grass is greener where you water it." The program will encourage participants to live their best life as a lawyer by re-focusing their energy. Adriana Linares — founder of LawTech Partners, nationally recognized legal tech consultant and host of the New Solo podcast — will lead a session on “Tech Tips to Optimize Efficiency and Reduce Stress for Lawyers.” Other speakers will include Meera Ballal, Heidi Barcus, Julie Bennett, Rebecca Blair, Dixie Cooper, Jackie Dixon, Sherie Edwards, Psonya Hackett, Rachel Lawson, Sarah Beth Myers and Laquita Stokes. A networking reception will follow from 4:30 to 6 p.m. All times CST. Click here to register for this annual favorite produced by the Women in the Profession Committee.

PER CURIAM. Michael Thomas pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, and the district court sentenced him to 300 months in prison. He now seeks to vacate his plea and challenge the reasonableness of his sentence. We reject his arguments and affirm.

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Andrew Maurice Randolph was convicted of second- degree murder and weapons charges in state court and sentenced to life in prison. The case hinged largely on ammunition found in his father’s home and a firearm found in his brother’s home. Randolph’s trial counsel did not move to suppress this evidence. In state court, Randolph contended that the failure to file the suppression motion and several other alleged deficiencies rendered trial counsel ineffective. The state courts rejected his claims, and he now seeks federal habeas relief. Randolph now comes before our court asserting four bases for habeas relief. But after seeking a COA from the district court, a single judge of our court, a panel, and the en banc court Randolph comes before our court asserting four bases for habeas relief. But after seeking a COA from the district court, a single judge of our court, a panel, and the en banc court, this court granted the COA on only one of his grounds for relief. Despite this denial, he briefed all four issues anyway and asked us to expand the COA. Mindful of our limited role under AEDPA, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the petition because the state court’s factual findings were not unreasonable, and its legal conclusions were neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. We also DENY the motion to expand the COA because we, as a panel of this court, cannot and will not reconsider the decisions of the motions panel and the en banc court.

The Lawyers' Association for Women (LAW) will hold its annual New Admittee Breakfast on Nov. 4 from 7:30 to 9 a.m. CST at the Grand Hyatt, 1000 Broadway, Nashville 37203. This year’s keynote speaker will be Davidson County Circuit Court Judge Stephanie Williams. For almost 50 years, the breakfast has been recognized as a signature event in the Middle Tennessee legal community. It is attended by new admittees, judges, local bar dignitaries and attorneys. The event is free to new admittees. General admission tickets are $75. The plated breakfast includes avocado toast, breakfast entrée, pastries, juice, water and coffee. View a flyer for the event or register here.

TBA Litigation Section Chair Will Perry and TBA Young Lawyers Division President-elect Jen Sneed were married on Oct. 18 in a small ceremony in New York City. Do you have news to share? We are interested in sharing your news of significant life events, including marriages, birth/adoption announcements, travel and special awards and recognitions. If you have good news to share, please fill our our online form. We can't wait to read all about your news!

The Defendant, Cleotha Abston, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court convictions of aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, for which he received an effective sentence of eighty years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to exclude reference to a firearm recovered from his vehicle following his arrest, (2) the trial court erred by denying his request to instruct the jury regarding lost or destroyed evidence pursuant to State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999), (3) the trial court erred by denying his motion to bifurcate his charge of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and (4) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm.

We do not reach the merits of the appeal due to Appellant’s failure to comply with the briefing requirements outlined in Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 27(a), and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee.

In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant/Father appeals only the trial court’s denial of his motion for continuance. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance. Although Father does not appeal the termination of his parental rights, we are required to review that decision. The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by an incarcerated parent by failure to visit, failure to support, and wanton disregard; (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the child. The trial court also found that termination of Appellant’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Keith Dessinger has filed a “Motion to Accept Rule 10B Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc Under Tenn. R. App. P. 2 and 46 and to Incorporate Existing Mandamus Record.” The context behind the filing begins with an application for interlocutory appeal, which Mr. Dessinger filed over the summer. He sought interlocutory review of restrictions placed on his parenting time in another case involving Sally McIver, who is also a party here. After we denied the application, Mr. Dessinger filed a “Notice of Supplemental Rule 10B Filing” under the same appeal number. Order Denying Application, Dessinger v. McIver, W2025-00952-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 9, 2025). The supplemental filing related to Mr. Dessinger’s effort to disqualify Judge Cedrick D. Wooten in this case. Mr. Dessinger appears to have attached the same supplemental filing in this appeal.

This appeal concerns a driveway easement. Robert Davis and Lala Davis (“Plaintiffs,” collectively) sued their neighbor Karen Edwards (“Edwards”) in the Circuit Court for Bradley County (“the Trial Court”) to enforce an oral agreement whereby Edwards agreed to build her own driveway on her property. Edwards had been using Plaintiffs’ driveway under the terms of the Driveway Easement and Maintenance Agreement (“the DEMA”), an express easement agreed to by Plaintiffs and Jeanette Schlaeger (“Schlaeger”), the previous owner of Edwards’ property. After a hearing, the Trial Court found that Edwards had reached a verbal agreement with Plaintiffs to build her own driveway, and that she must build it. Plaintiffs filed a motion for additional findings asking that the DEMA be terminated even though that was not an issue at trial. The Trial Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion on grounds that the DEMA was meant to be temporary despite the DEMA’s unambiguous language to the contrary. Edwards appealed. Subsequently, Joe Hamby and Amber Hamby (“Defendants”) bought Edwards’ property and were substituted as appellants. We hold, inter alia, that the DEMA is permanent and runs with the land. The Trial Court abused its discretion in granting Plaintiffs’ motion for additional findings. We reverse the Trial Court’s judgment nullifying the DEMA.