Thank you for your support of the Federal Practice Section this bar year! Be sure to save the date for the Federal Practice Virtual Forum on July 14. The annual forum is a great time to connect with others in your practice area, and remember, you can use your section discount for the CLE.

Thank you for being part of the Federal Practice Section. If you have thoughts or ideas for future section initiatives, do not hesitate to reach out.

The TBA Creditors Practice Section directory is a great place to find colleagues with a similar focus. The directory provides a list of section members with contact information and a list of any other sections or TBA groups to which they belong. This resource provides a great way to connect with like-minded lawyers and cross-reference attorneys well-versed in other practice areas as well. View the section directory here.

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB846/HB1268 with an amendment on March 24. The legislation — introduced by Sen. Brent Taylor, R-Eads, and Rep. Rick Scarbrough, R-Oak Ridge — now goes to the Senate Finance Committee. The bill as amended creates two additional criminal courts in the 30th Judicial District and requires the governor to appoint judges to serve through Sept. 1, 2028. An election for the posts would be held in August 2028, and the winners of that election would serve until Sept. 1, 20230. At the August 2030 general election, voters would elect judges for a full eight-year term. The bill as approved also would create four assistant district attorney general positions and two criminal investigator positions for the judicial district. The House Criminal Justice Subcommittee is set to consider the bill on April 1. The Commercial Appeal has background on the issue.

Leitner Williams Dooley Napolitan (LWDN) currently is hiring an associate attorney for its Memphis office. Candidates should have three to five years of experience with litigation experience in Tennessee preferred. License to practice in Arkansas or Mississippi in addition to Tennessee is a plus. Salary will be commensurate with experience. LWDN was established in the late 1800s with offices in Knoxville, Nashville, Chattanooga and Memphis and a strong emphasis on civil litigation. Resumes should be sent to Sharon Govan at sharon.govan@leitnerfirm.com. Learn more about this opportunity on TBA’s Career Center.

READLER, Circuit Judge. Legendary director Martin Scorsese’s highest grossing film, The Wolf of Wall Street, features the real-life trials and tribulations of Jordan Belfort, a hard- charging New York City stockbroker. After passing the Series 7 exam and qualifying to buy and sell securities, Belfort amasses enormous wealth as a broker, only to land in hot water with the Securities and Exchange Commission over his suspicious trading activity and other antics. See generally The Wolf of Wall Street, Netflix (Paramount Pictures 2013). For understandable cinematic reasons, the movie glosses over some of the finer points of the securities industry’s regulatory structure, including who administers the Series 7 exam. That job currently belongs to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, better known simply as FINRA. Among other securities-related rules FINRA puts forth, one set of regulations requires an applicant interested in taking the Series 7 exam (or a variety of other qualifying securities industry exams) to first register with FINRA or be associated with a FINRA member firm. Unlike Belfort, petitioner Eric Smith declined to register with the appropriate authorities. But like Belfort, he still ended up in the SEC’s crosshairs. Smith now seeks review of the SEC’s order upholding sanctions against him for violating a host of securities-related laws and administrative rules. He argues that FINRA lacked jurisdiction over him and that the proceedings before the SEC ran afoul of Article III and the Seventh Amendment. With respect to those latter issues, however, Smith failed to raise his constitutional arguments before the SEC, so we cannot reach them. And as to the threshold jurisdictional question, because FINRA had statutory jurisdiction over Smith despite his refusal to register, we deny his petition for review.

Defendant, George Harris Patterson, III, who was described at oral argument as a First Amendment Auditor, was indicted for resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and assault on a first responder after an incident at a Davidson County Post Office. A jury found Defendant not guilty of resisting arrest but guilty of disorderly conduct and assault. Defendant appeals, raising several issues. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the constitutionality of the disorderly conduct statute under the First Amendment as applied to him, the trial court’s failure to give a special jury instruction, the trial court’s admission of a piece of evidence and testimony from a postal employee, and the trial court’s failure to grant a mistrial. He also insists he is entitled to cumulative error relief. After a review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, John Wayne Hamby, was convicted by a Cumberland County jury of rape of a child, for which he received a sentence of forty years’ incarceration at one hundred percent service. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by imposing an excessive sentence. Because we conclude that the Defendant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed and that the interests of justice do not merit waiver of the untimeliness, we dismiss the appeal.

Defendant, Martha Jane Durocher, was indicted by the Maury County Grand Jury for reckless endangerment with a weapon. Defendant was convicted as charged after a bench trial, and the trial court imposed a two-year sentence to be suspended on probation. Defendant appeals, arguing the evidence at trial was insufficient. Because the evidence does not establish that Defendant’s conduct placed any person or persons in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, we reverse and vacate her conviction for felony reckless endangerment with a weapon.

The plaintiffs appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of their claims against two sets of defendants. We now affirm, holding that this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal filed more than 30 days from the entry of the final orders appealed from. We also affirm the dismissal of a counter-complaint filed against the plaintiffs.

This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor children. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence established several grounds of termination and that termination was in the best interest of the children. We now affirm.