MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Thomas O’Lear ran a company that ostensibly offered mobile x-ray services for residents at nursing homes. But O’Lear used the company to cheat Medicare and Medicaid programs out of almost $2 million. He relied on the identities of nursing-home residents to bill for fictitious x-rays. To conceal this fraud during an audit, he also forged the names of his staff and put duplicate x-rays of some patients in the files of others. A jury convicted him of healthcare fraud, making a false statement in connection with healthcare services, and aggravated identity theft. The district court sentenced him to 180 months’ imprisonment.

O’Lear raises several questions on appeal, including the following two: Did the district court violate his Sixth Amendment right to an “impartial jury” by excluding individuals who had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 from the pool of potential jurors? And were the nursing-home residents “victims” of O’Lear’s fraud under a “vulnerable victims” sentencing enhancement even though Medicare and Medicaid suffered the monetary losses? Our respective answers: No and yes. Unlike members of a particular race or sex, the unvaccinated do not qualify as the type of “distinctive group” that can trigger Sixth Amendment concerns with excluding a “fair cross section of the community” from the jury pool. Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 174, 184 (1986). And because O’Lear used the identities and health records of nursing-home residents without their permission, he “[took] advantage of” them in a way that made them “victims” of his fraud under the ordinary understanding of that term. United States v. Webster, 615 F. App’x 362, 364 (6th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). O’Lear’s remaining arguments also lack merit. We thus affirm.

The Appellant, Kelvin Montgomery, was convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual battery. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirtyseven years’ confinement. On appeal, the Appellant argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court committed plain error by failing to provide the jury instruction required under State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559, 580-81 (Tenn. 2012), in connection with his aggravated rape charge; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum within-range sentences and ordering that they be served consecutively. Upon our review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The TBA Young Lawyers Division Mock Trial Committee is seeking sitting judges and attorneys to volunteer for the 2024 State High School Mock Trial Competition. High school students across the state will present their best arguments at district competitions in February. Teams prevailing at district will advance to the state competition, set for March 22-23 in Nashville. The problem — a criminal scenario centered around an evening of pranks and alleged revenge that goes terribly wrong — competition rules and other information is online. Those interested in helping should indicate their availability on this online form.

Five easement holders filed suit against two other easement holders and the servient estate owners seeking a declaratory judgment regarding whether the easements could be used for commercial logging activities. The trial court concluded that commercial logging activities were not a permissible use of the easements and entered an order restraining and enjoining use of the easements for such activities. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Four more women have joined a lawsuit challenging Tennessee's restrictive abortion law, which first was filed in September 2023, bringing the total number of plaintiffs to nine, including two doctors. The Associated Press reports that three of the women were denied abortions while experiencing severe pregnancy complications, forcing them to travel out of state for the procedure. The plaintiffs argue that the law violates pregnant patients’ right to life as guaranteed by the state’s constitution and are asking a three-judge panel to clarify the circumstances that qualify patients to legally receive an abortion. Among the circumstances they want included are fatal diagnoses. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing the plaintiffs, also recently requested a temporary injunction on enforcing the law as the court case proceeds.

Tennessee House Republicans will not pursue last August's temporary sign ban when the legislature convenes Tuesday, The Tennessee Journal reports. A judge last year blocked the sign ban on First Amendment grounds and the temporary rules expired with conclusion of the special session. House Majority Leader William Lamberth, R-Portland, said that for the regular session, small handheld signs will be allowed so long as they are not held up to obstruct the view of others.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, along with the attorneys general of Montana and Kansas, on Friday led a coalition of 19 states in submitting a public comment letter challenging the legality of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s “Businesses Diversity Principles” proposal. The proposal would push businesses to “strive to meet diversity targets in their long-term workforce plans” and assess DEIA performance using “demographic data across all levels and departments.” The attorneys general argue that the policy violates the law and promotes racial discrimination. Read the press release and the letter.

In this Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9 interlocutory appeal, we address whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant Town’s motion for summary judgment on Appellees’ negligence and joint-venture claims. We conclude that the public-duty doctrine shields the Town from liability, and the special-duty exception does not apply. Furthermore, Appellees’ “joint venture” claims are simply additional negligence claims seeking to hold Appellant Town liable for the alleged negligence of other defendants. Because the Tennessee Legislature has not waived governmental immunity under such circumstances, Appellant Town’s immunity was never removed as to the “joint venture” claims. As such, the trial court erred in denying Appellant Town’s motion for summary judgment as to Appellees’ negligence and “joint venture” claims.

This is an appeal from a final order entered on July 19, 2023.1 The Notice of Appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until September 7, 2023, more than thirty days from the date of entry of the order from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Defendant, Lanoris Cordell Carter, appeals his Lake County Circuit Court conviction for tampering with evidence. He argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Defendant asserts that throwing items out of a car window during an attempted traffic stop such that law enforcement could not recover the items is “mere abandonment” rather than concealment or destruction for purposes of the evidence tampering statute. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.