On Feb. 12, the Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for its February docket in Nashville. The proceedings will be held at the Supreme Court building and livestreamed to the YouTube page. At 9 a.m. CST, the court will hear three with the first two cases involve the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County challenging the constitutionality of 2023 state laws affecting the size of Metro’s legislative body and the governance of the Metro Nashville Airport Authority, raising questions under the Tennessee Constitution’s Local Legislation, Exemption and Anti-Ripper clauses. The third case centers on whether a hospital may pursue an unjust enrichment claim for post-stabilization medical services provided to TennCare patients without prior authorization. The Administrative Office of the Courts has more about each case.

The Tennessee Bar Association will remain closed today due to inclement weather. The office will reopen Wednesday at 8 a.m. CST. Visit the TBA.org website for information on CLE or other TBA programs and for staff contact information.

The TBA will remain closed on Jan. 27 due to inclement weather. The office will reopen Wednesday at 8 a.m. CST. Visit the TBA.org website for information on CLE or other TBA programs and for staff contact information.

The Tennessee Bar Association will be closed today due to inclement weather. The office will reopen Tuesday at 8 a.m. CST. Visit the TBA.org website for information on CLE or other TBA programs and for staff contact information.

The TBA will be closed Jan. 26 due to inclement weather. The office will reopen Tuesday at 8 a.m. CST. Visit the TBA.org website for information on CLE or other TBA programs and for staff contact information.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. If witnesses testify that they “do not remember” whether some event occurred, does their lack of recollection satisfy a plaintiff’s burden to present enough evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the event did, in fact, occur? This case raises that question. And we answer “no” on the facts presented.

PER CURIAM. Following an anonymous tip, police found a large quantity of methamphetamine in Steven Fellmy’s car. Fellmy contends that the drugs should have been suppressed at trial because the officers unlawfully searched his car using a police dog. We affirm.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Outside of Woodbury, Tennessee, deputies Brandon Deffendoll and Zachary Smith pulled over a pickup truck for minor traffic violations. As the driver, Louis Alford, and his girlfriend rummaged around for the documents Deffendoll requested, Deffendoll spotted a syringe filled with clear liquid. Deffendoll proceeded to search the truck, unearthing additional empty syringes, a baggie of powder, paper smeared with residue, empty baggies, pills that were prescribed to a person who was not present, and two digital scales. Deffendoll arrested Alford and charged him with three state drug offenses. The charges were ultimately dismissed, but not before Alford was jailed and his parole was revoked. Alford then filed this action against Deffendoll, Smith, and Cannon County, bringing false arrest, malicious prosecution, and Monell claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following discovery, the district court granted the defendants summary judgment on all three § 1983 claims. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

The Defendant, Bobby V. Summers, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to facilitation of first degree murder. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Rhea County jury convicted the Defendant, Heather Fisher, of possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance, schedule II, to wit: methamphetamine in an amount in excess of 0.5 grams (count one); three counts of possession of a schedule IV drug with intent to sell or deliver (alprazolam, diazepam, and clonazepam) (counts three through five); possession with intent to sell or deliver a schedule VI controlled substance, to wit: marijuana in excess of 0.5 grams or more (count six); possession of a weapon during commission of a drug offense (count seven); maintaining a drug involved dwelling (count eight); and possession of unlawful drug paraphernalia (count nine), for which she received an effective thirteen year sentence.1 In this appeal as of right, the Defendant challenges only her conviction in count seven for possession of a weapon during the commission of a drug offense and argues (1) the evidence failed to establish that she possessed a weapon and failed to establish that she had the requisite intent to go armed; and (2) that the trial court erred in determining that the offense of carrying a weapon was not established by the evidence and that it erred in excluding carrying a weapon as a lesser-included offense of count seven. 2 Upon our review, we affirm.