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.

Student attorneys Alexander J. McGrail and John R. Neal Jr., working with the Stanton Foundation First Amendment Clinic, have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in Hussey v. City of Cambridge, urging the court to strengthen First Amendment protections for public employees, according to a press release from Vanderbilt Law School. The case involves a police officer disciplined over social media comments made in a private capacity on matters of public concern. The brief argues that applying the Pickering balancing test to controversial or unpopular speech should not allow government employers to suppress such expression, warning it could effectively create a “heckler’s veto.” It also contends that employers should be required to provide evidence that employee speech would cause workplace disruption. Joined by several legal scholars and advocacy organizations, the filing asks the full 1st Circuit to reconsider prior rulings in the case, with a decision expected next year.

Thank you for your continued support of the TBA Juvenile & Children's Law Section! We know that the challenges you face as juvenile attorneys and appointed counsel are unique, and we are committed to advocating on your behalf. As the state's new indigent representation plan rolls out, we encourage you to stay connected with other juvenile law practitioners in Tennessee. To that end, the section's executive council currently has open positions. The executive council meets monthly to develop and implement section initiatives, discuss relevant legislation when the General Assembly is in session, and provide feedback to TBA leadership on juvenile law issues. If you are interested, please email section coordinator Jamie Rhode with your bio for consideration.

In the meantime, you do not have to wait to connect with colleagues. The section directory is a great resource for meeting other juvenile attorneys or for referrals. We hope to see you at TBA programming, and if you have thoughts or ideas about future section initiatives, please do not hesitate to reach out to Jamie Rhode.

Judge Chris Frulla announced he will seek reelection to Shelby County Circuit Court, Division 3 on the Aug. 6 ballot. Frulla earned his law degree from the Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law at the University of Memphis and practiced law at Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell PLC from 2012 until his appointment to the bench. He was appointed to the Circuit Court by Gov. Bill Lee in August 2025. “For me, being a judge is about more than just handling cases — it’s about making a meaningful difference for the citizens of Shelby County and the community I love,” Frulla said. Read more about Frulla on his campaign website.

For the first time, a panel of the Tennessee Court of Appeals composed entirely of women judges convened in Nashville on March 24. Judges Carma Dennis McGee, Kristi M. Davis and Valerie L. Smith sat together during the court’s regular monthly session, a milestone made possible by the court’s traveling judge assignments. “When I came on the court in 2019, I was the only female,” said Judge McGee. Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Holly Kirby, one of the court’s early female pioneers, called the panel inspirational, noting the progress of women in the judiciary. Read more from the Administrative Office of the Courts.