McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Tyren Cervenak challenges his 188-month sentence. Specifically, he challenges the district court’s application of a career-offender enhancement that increased the advisory sentencing guidelines range for his convictions. Cervenak argues that the district court erred by determining one of his prior state convictions—an Ohio robbery—qualified as a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines.

Binding precedent forecloses Cervenak’s challenge to the career-offender enhancement. Under this precedent, his Ohio robbery conviction is a crime of violence. We AFFIRM.

The Appellant, Izaiha Gleaves, was convicted of second degree murder, attempted second degree murder, two counts of employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, aggravated assault, and tampering with evidence. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of forty-nine years’ confinement. On appeal, the Appellant argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it failed to excuse a juror who had a conflict of interest; (3) the trial court erred when it admitted a redacted recording of a witness interview; (4) the trial court’s cumulative errors warrant reversal; and (5) the trial court erred when it imposed an effective sentence of forty-nine years. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

A Hawkins County jury convicted the Defendant, Travis Scott Gilliam, in three cases involving violations of the Sex Offender Registry, community supervision for life, and related offenses. In a fourth case, the Defendant pled guilty to the offense of aggravated assault and agreed to a six-year sentence running consecutively to the other cases. After a hearing, the trial court imposed partially consecutive sentences for a total effective sentence of fourteen years plus eleven months and twenty-nine days. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences and that the judgments conflict with the trial court’s oral announcement. Upon our review, we dismiss the appeal in Case No. 22-CR-36 because this sentence was entered pursuant to a valid plea agreement and was the subject of a valid waiver of appeal. Regarding the other cases, we respectfully affirm the trial court’s judgments. We also remand these cases for entry of corrected judgments reflecting the alignment of the sentence as announced at the sentencing hearing.

This appeal concerns subject matter jurisdiction. Eric O. Carter (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) against Howard Gentry (“Gentry”), Davidson County Criminal Court Clerk, and Frank Strada (“Strada”), Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”), asking that the criminal judgment entered against him be expunged because it was not properly endorsed under the applicable rules and statutes. The Trial Court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner appeals, arguing that he only wants a ministerial act performed and is not challenging his sentence. We find that Petitioner is in fact challenging his sentence, and the Trial Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear that challenge. We, therefore, affirm the Trial Court.

This is a partition in kind action. The three owners of 68 acres entered into a joint stipulation appointing three commissioners to partition the property into three separate parcels. Thereafter, the commissioners filed a written report with a survey that allocated 32.4 acres to the plaintiff Jerry Green, 17.8 acres to the defendant Robert Hale, and 18.1 acres to the defendant Cynthia Panter. After the defendants filed exceptions to the commissioners’ report, the parties agreed to have one of the commissioners testify to state the commissioners’ factual findings and reasoning. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Commissioner Bill Haisten testified in open court, explaining, in part, that more acreage was partitioned to the plaintiff because much of the parcel allocated to him is hilly and rocky and another large portion of the plaintiff’s parcel is encumbered by a TVA power line easement. Commissioner Haisten also testified that while the three partitioned parcels are not equal in area, they are equal in fair market value. Based upon these additional facts, the trial court concluded that the partitioning of the property by the commissioners should be confirmed. The defendants appeal, contending, inter alia, that without sufficient proof of either the value of the property partitioned or of the evaluations from which the commissioners derived their partition division, the trial court erred in confirming the commissioners’ report. We affirm.

A sales representative for a product vendor was injured while in a Tractor Supply store performing his job. The sales representative received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer, a hardware product company, and then proceeded with a tort case against Tractor Supply. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Tractor Supply was the sales representative’s statutory employer within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6- 113(a) and, therefore, his recovery from his employer was his exclusive remedy. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Tractor Supply.

The trial court granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss on the ground of judicial immunity. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Register by 11:59 p.m. CDT on April 30 for TBA's Annual Convention in Memphis, June 12-15, to take advantage of Early Bird pricing! The Peabody Hotel has special room rates for convention attendees, so make those reservations by May 22.

In the final days of the 113th General Assembly, the House passed SB2763/HB2035, which would block local governments from passing their own version of an extreme risk protection order. According to the Tennessean, Democrat members criticized the legislation as a power grab over local control and pointed out that Republicans blocked any substantive debate on the issue during the legislative session. Bill sponsor Rep. Jody Barrett, R-Dickson, said he brought the bill to maintain "consistency," but also noted an ideological opposition to red flag laws. The Senate passed the bill earlier this month. It now goes to Gov. Bill Lee for his consideration. In 2023, Lee had proposed an order of protection but the legislature did not consider it during a special August session that year.

TBA’s Government Affairs team was successful in shepherding all four of TBA’s legislative proposals through the Tennessee General Assembly before legislators adjourned for the year. The latest episode of Legislative Updates takes a closer look at all of the TBA's bills plus the franchise/excise tax bill and conference report. Listen to attorney and TBA lobbyist Berkley Schwarz and TBA lobbyist and Adams and Reese attorney Brad Lampley on the TBA's Facebook page or wherever you get your podcasts. Read more in our legislative report on bills covering indigent representation funding, the cost of electronic medical records, conservatorships, adoption clean-up and birth certificates in adoptions.