MURPHY, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Dwayne Robinson of unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon. A district court imposed the Armed Career Criminal Act’s minimum punishment because it found that Robinson had previously committed three qualifying offenses on “occasions different from one another[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Robinson now raises four claims. He argues that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment by responding to a jury note without his counsel’s input. He argues that the court should have granted a mistrial after detectives implied that he had shot at someone. He argues that the jury instructions incorrectly told the jury that gun ownership is irrelevant to gun possession. Finally, he argues that the district court could not invoke the Armed Career Criminal Act because the court did not require the jury to resolve whether he had committed his prior offenses on different occasions. None of these arguments provides a basis for relief. Robinson did not properly object to the court’s response to the jury note, its failure to grant a mistrial, or its jury instructions. We thus review these challenges for plain error. Robinson also has not shown that the district court committed an obvious mistake on any of these issues. As for his sentencing challenge, intervening Supreme Court precedent has confirmed Robinson’s claim that the jury should have decided whether he committed his prior offenses on different occasions. But our court’s intervening precedent has made clear that this type of error can be harmless. And a gap of many years separated each of Robinson’s three crimes. The record thus leaves no doubt that he committed those crimes on different occasions and that this error was harmless here. We affirm.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. This appeal asks whether a corrections officer violated the Eighth Amendment both by using excessive force and by failing to obtain medical care afterward. The officer threw an inmate to the ground and kneed him in the back for failing to comply with an order. The district court denied the officer’s qualified-immunity defense at the summary-judgment stage. We agree with the district court that a reasonable jury could find that the officer maliciously used force to retaliate against the inmate for his disrespectful language. And this version of the facts would show that the officer violated clearly established law. On the other hand, we disagree with the district court that a reasonable jury could find that the officer deliberately disregarded the inmate’s medical needs. No evidence suggests that the officer even knew of the inmate’s injuries. All told, then, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

The Defendant, Sean Austin Miller, was convicted of aggravated sexual battery and received a sentence of ten years in confinement. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the Defendant touched the victim for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification. We affirm.

In this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9, we review the trial court’s order denying the motion of Defendant, Johntavius Griggs, for release from custody after he was found to be incompetent to stand trial for first degree murder due to his intellectual disability. The trial court found that the conclusion of psychiatrists designated by the Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (“DIDD”)1 that Defendant was ineligible for involuntary commitment was based on their misinterpretation of the statutory provisions governing the involuntary commitment of defendants found to be incompetent to stand trial due to intellectual disability. The trial court ordered additional evaluations by DIDD-designated physicians or psychologists to determine Defendant’s eligibility for involuntary commitment. Upon review, we conclude that the DIDD-designated psychiatrists misinterpreted the applicable statutory provisions in determining that Defendant did not meet the statutory requirements for involuntary commitment. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment denying Defendant’s motion for release from custody, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Pro se Petitioner, James Allen Gooch, Jr., appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his third motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, arguing that his sentence is illegal because the State failed to procure a valid arrest warrant. Upon our review, we conclude that the Petitioner has waived this claim for failure to raise it in his trial court motion and that, regardless, this court has already considered and rejected the Petitioner’s argument in a previous appeal. See State v. Gooch, No. M2017-01885-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 3414293 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 13, 2018), no perm. app. filed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

March 31, 2025 - April 4, 2025.

A former member of the Tennessee Inmate Disciplinary Oversight Board pleaded guilty to aggravated statutory rape Monday morning. According to the Commercial Appeal, Vanessa Murtaugh was indicted on one count of statutory rape by an authority figure and one count of aggravated rape. She resigned from her position on the board the next day. If convicted of both counts at trial, she could have faced 10 to 16 years in prison. Instead, under the plea deal, Murtaugh will serve four years of diversion and register as a sex offender.

After firing one Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) board member last month, the Trump administration now has fired board chair Joe Ritch, a Huntsville, Alabama, lawyer and community leader. The move leaves the governing body of the nation's largest public power provider with four members, which does not constitute a quorum, Knox News reports. The board voted at its February meeting to make Bill Renick of Mississippi its next chair, effective in May or earlier if Ritch was unable to fulfill his duties. Ritch, nominated for a second term by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2022, was set to serve until May 18. The federally owned and self-funded utility was created by Congress during the Great Depression. It produces electricity for 10 million people across seven Southeast states and provides economic development and environmental stewardship to the Tennessee Valley.

Three University of Tennessee at Knoxville students and one former student working on campus are at risk of deportation due to changes made by the federal government to their immigration status, according to an email Chancellor Donde Plowman sent Friday to the campus community. The university discovered the changes in a federal immigration database that processes documents for international students and exchange visitors, Knox News reports. The status change occurred after the students were identified in a criminal records check, making them ineligible to be enrolled or employed at the school and placing them at risk of deportation. UT found one student had been granted judicial diversion for a property crime, and another had been charged with DUI. The university has not determined the cause of the status change for the other two individuals. "The Center for Global Engagement’s International Student and Scholar Services is working to support these individuals as we continue to work to fully understand their situations," Plowman said in the email.

The U.S. Copyright Office has released Part 2 of its Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (AI), addressing the copyrightability of AI-generated works. The report maintains that human authorship and creativity remain essential to obtaining copyright protection for works involving materials created by artificial intelligence. Part 1, released last summer, discusses legal and policy issues related to AI and digital replicas, while Part 2 analyzes the type and degree of human contributions needed to bring AI-generated works under U.S. copyright protection. The report also explores how other countries are approaching the copyrightability of AI-generated content and the policy implications of providing additional legal protection for such material, Reuters reports. The office's AI initiative, launched in 2023, aims to issue registration guidance for works incorporating AI-generated content.