THAPAR, Circuit Judge. How does a case about a dog bite end up in federal court? Diversity jurisdiction. But just because a plaintiff is entitled to be in federal court, that doesn’t mean any federal court will do. Rather, the plaintiff must pick the right federal court. Here, the district court found that the plaintiff picked the wrong one. We affirm.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. A certified class of Ohio landowners alleges that a Colorado- based mining company underpaid them $10 million in natural gas royalties. The district court agreed, and so do we. We affirm.

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Marina Debity brought claims against the Monroe County Board of Education for sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). Debity alleges that the Board offered her a lower salary than it had paid Matthew Ancel for the same job two years earlier. According to Debity, when she asked for the same salary as Ancel, the Board withdrew her job offer in retaliation. A jury found that the Board did offer Debity less money for equal work, but for legitimate reasons having nothing to do with her sex. It also found that the Board did not retaliate against Debity. Based on these findings, she had no claim to damages. Nevertheless, the jury awarded Debity slightly more than $195,000, likely because of poor instructions on the verdict form. The magistrate judge, presiding with the parties’ consent, noticed the inconsistency between the damage award and the jury’s finding of no liability but nonetheless dismissed the jurors without allowing the parties to object. On appeal, we face two questions. The first is what type of verdicts the jury returned. The second is whether the Board’s affirmative defense, that it offered Debity less money for a reason other than sex, survives a motion for judgment as a matter of law. We conclude that the magistrate judge presented the jury with a general verdict on the retaliation claims and a general verdict with interrogatories on the discrimination claims. We also conclude that the jury’s answers to the interrogatories on the discrimination claims are consistent with each other but inconsistent with the general verdict. Though we reject the magistrate judge’s classification of these verdicts as special verdicts, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure still permit the magistrate judge’s chosen course (entering judgment based on the interrogatories) under the correct classification, so we affirm it.

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. Congress instructed the Sentencing Commission to enhance the Sentencing Guidelines range for individuals convicted of a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense after having been previously convicted of two or more such offenses. 28 U.S.C. § 994(h). The Commission created the career-offender guideline in response to Congress’s directive. We must decide if the district court properly increased Tyren Cervenak’s Guidelines range under the career-offender guideline. Specifically, we consider whether Cervenak’s prior convictions for robbery under Ohio law are “crimes of violence,” as the Guidelines use that term. Because we hold that they are not, we vacate Cervenak’s sentence.

The Defendant, Michael Stacey James May, was convicted by a Johnson County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, conspiracy to commit especially aggravated kidnapping, extortion, and conspiracy to commit extortion. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life plus twenty years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. However, because the appeal is untimely and the interest of justice does not require waiver of the timely filing of the notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

Petitioner, Keyshawn D. Fouse, was convicted of attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-six years’ confinement. This court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, and the post-conviction court denied the petition after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to properly advise him of the importance of his testimony at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Asben K. Chapman, of one count of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of felony murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, and two counts of employing a firearm during a dangerous felony offense. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life plus thirty-one years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the trial court improperly admitted pretrial statements; (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish premeditation for his first degree murder conviction and attempted first degree murder convictions; and (3) the trial court improperly ordered consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has released Formal Opinion 516, offering guidance for lawyers seeking to end a representation under Rule 1.16(b)(1). The opinion clarifies when a lawyer’s withdrawal would have a "material adverse effect" on the client’s interests, which would prevent withdrawal, including if it significantly harms the client’s progress, increases costs or hinders the client’s ability to achieve legal objectives. It also notes that lawyers may mitigate these effects and withdraw without violating the rule if the harm is minimized. The opinion concludes that lawyers should exercise care and thoughtfulness in deciding whether to accept an engagement and generally refrain from ending a relationship without good cause, but even careful lawyers may occasionally need to end representation.

The Metropolitan Nashville Police Department has released the final report on the Covenant School shooting, WKRN news reports. The 48-page report covers several topics, including the shooter’s motive and a detailed account of the attack. In March 2023, six people were killed, and the shooter, Audrey Hale, was fatally shot by Metro officers. According to the report, Hale had sought notoriety, acted alone in planning and carrying out the attack, and left no reason for the attack or choice of target. In 2024, a judge ruled in favor of Covenant families who fought to keep Hale’s writings sealed after a legal battle over their release. Despite that ruling, the Tennessee Star claimed to have published 90 pages of the so-called manifesto in September 2024.

A proposal that would allow public schools to take certain actions involving children without legal immigration status is headed to the state Senate floor after clearing the Finance, Ways, and Means Committee yesterday. The Senate version of the bill would require school districts to verify each student’s immigration status. For children without citizenship or a visa, schools could choose whether to enroll them, deny them, or charge their families tuition based on the state’s per-student funding model. Last Wednesday, the House version of the bill advanced in the House Education Committee, according to WPLN News.