SUTTON, Chief Judge. In the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress created the Paycheck Protection Program to keep American workers employed. The program promised forgivable loans to small businesses that maintained their payrolls during the crisis. One such business, Veltor Underground LLC, claimed that it had six employees when it applied for and received a $125,000 loan. But the Small Business Administration declined to forgive the loan when it discovered that Veltor’s six employees were in fact independent contractors. Veltor sued. The district court sided with the government. Because Veltor’s payments to independent contractors do not qualify as “payroll costs” under the statute, we affirm.

Christopher Terrell Shipp, Petitioner, was convicted of one count of criminally negligent homicide, one count of felony murder, two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, and one count of attempted second degree murder after a jury trial. He was sentenced to an effective sentence of life in prison. On direct appeal, Petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of the preliminary hearing testimony of one of the victims in the home invasion. State v. Shipp, No. M2016-01397-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 4457595, at *1-2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 5, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 14, 2018). Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief seeking post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. An amended petition filed after counsel was appointed raised additional claims, including a Brady claim based on the State’s withholding of a witness statement before the preliminary hearing. After an evidentiary hearing, Petitioner sought removal of his appointed counsel. This Court denied Petitioner’s application for an extraordinary appeal and the post-conviction court denied the petition for post-conviction relief. Eventually, Petitioner was allowed to proceed pro se on appeal. Because Petitioner has either waived his issues or failed to prove his allegations by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm the judgment of the post- conviction court.

Movant, Antonio K. Champion, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence related to his guilty-pleaded convictions in Madison County Circuit Court case numbers 22-488 and 22-489.1 On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion because he was improperly sentenced as a Range II offender based upon several prior convictions, which he asserts also involved “illegal” sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.

This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor child. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish at least one statutory ground of termination. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the child. We affirm the trial court’s termination decision.

In this commercial lease dispute, the tenant sued the landlord for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement, and the landlord counterclaimed for breach of contract. The trial court granted the tenant’s motion for partial summary judgment on its breach of contract claim, concluding that the landlord breached the lease. The matter then proceeded to trial, where the jury returned a verdict on a list of issues, including damages on the tenant’s breach of contract claim, the landlord’s defenses to the breach of contract claim, the tenant’s fraudulent inducement claim, and the landlord’s breach of contract claim against the tenant. The jury found in favor of the tenant on both of its claims against the landlord but only awarded damages on the breach of contract claim. The jury concluded that the landlord had not proven its breach of contract claim. We have determined that the trial court erred in granting the tenant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and, therefore, reverse and remand.

This action involves the termination of the parents’ parental rights to their minor child. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish statutory grounds of termination as applied to each parent. The court found that termination was in the best interest of the child. We affirm the court’s termination decision.

The Tennessee Supreme Court permanently disbarred Sumner County lawyer Andy Lamar Allman from the practice of law on July 11 and ordered him to pay restitution to certain complainants and all costs incurred by the Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR). The court found that Allman failed to provide competent and diligent representation to complainants; failed to keep them informed about their respective cases; charged certain clients an unreasonable fee; engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while suspended; failed to respond to the BPR regarding disciplinary complaints; failed to notify clients of his suspension from the practice of law; and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation while representing clients. Allman filed a petition for review, which the trial court dismissed with prejudice. The court found that Allman's conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 5.5, 8.1 and 8.4. In 2018, Allman was disbarred in June and again on July 13 and July 30. In 2023, the Supreme Court rejected a motion from the BPR seeking additional information in its disciplinary investigation, directing it only to determine the extent of final discipline to be imposed.

Shelby County Criminal Court Judge Paula Skahan, who announced her retirement in April after two decades on the bench and 40 years in the criminal legal system, said she is stepping down because she’s “had enough” of the stress and difficult cases, particularly those involving crimes against children. Skahan, whose last day was June 30, said the local legal system is “going pretty well” but urged higher pay for appointed attorneys to improve indigent defense, the Daily Memphian reports. Four candidates have applied to fill her seat, which is set to be decided at a public hearing next week at the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law.

The Justice Department’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division has partnered with the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to launch the Whistleblower Rewards Program, which will offer monetary incentives to individuals who report postal-related antitrust crimes and other offenses that harm consumers, taxpayers and free market competition across industries. Under the program, whistleblowers may receive up to 30% of any criminal fines recovered for credible information leading to convictions for illegal activities such as price-fixing, bid-rigging and market allocation. The program aims to help investigators break through the secrecy of antitrust crimes and is operated at no additional cost to taxpayers, according to a press release from the department.

The Trump administration has not decided where it would deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he is freed from a Tennessee jail, but a U.S. immigration official said Thursday that Mexico and South Sudan could be willing to accept him, according to the Associated Press. Thomas Giles, an assistant director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), testified in federal court that ICE would detain Abrego Garcia as soon as he’s released to await trial on human smuggling charges. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis is considering Abrego Garcia’s request to order the U.S. government to send him to Maryland instead, a bid aimed at preventing the Trump administration from trying to deport him again. “I’m deeply concerned that if there’s not some restraint on you, Mr. Abrego will be on another plane to another country,” Judge Xinis told Department of Justice lawyers on Friday.