MURPHY, Circuit Judge. The federal drug laws increase a defendant’s minimum sentence for a new drug offense if the defendant had a prior “serious drug felony” conviction that had “become final” before the defendant committed that new offense. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1). A previous crime can qualify as a “serious drug felony” only if the defendant “served” at least “12 months” in prison and was released “within 15 years” of the current offense. Id. § 802(58). In this case, the district court found as a fact that Aaron Loines’s prior federal drug offense met these elements. It thus imposed the statutory enhancement when sentencing Loines for new drug crimes. Loines now challenges that decision on several grounds, claiming that the Constitution required a jury to make the necessary findings, that the government acted arbitrarily and vindictively by requesting the enhancement, and that his prior conviction was not “final” when he committed his current crimes. But any error in failing to submit the issue to a jury was harmless. His challenges to the government’s decision to ask for this enhancement also cannot rebut our presumption that it properly exercised its prosecutorial discretion. And Loines misunderstands what it takes to make a conviction “final.” Lastly, our precedent forecloses his separate challenge to the district court’s use of a career-offender enhancement. We thus affirm.

In this case of first impression, Petitioner, Armon Yusef Pazouki, entered a conditional guilty plea to domestic assault pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313 (“the judicial diversion statute”). As part of the plea agreement, the trial court entered an order granting Petitioner judicial diversion and placing him on supervised probation for eleven months and twenty-nine days. At a subsequent revocation hearing, Petitioner conceded that he had violated the conditions of his diversionary probation, and pursuant to a new agreement with the State, the trial court revoked Petitioner’s judicial diversion and imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days suspended to supervised probation. Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the revocation proceedings and that his plea agreement in that proceeding was unknowing and involuntary. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner could not collaterally attack a revocation of judicial diversion through a post-conviction petition. On appeal, Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in finding that the Post- Conviction Procedure Act does not apply to proceedings relating to the revocation of judicial diversion. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Defendant, Ronald Eugene Fox, II, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of first degree murder, tampering with evidence, and initiating a false report. He challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence for his first degree murder conviction, the trial court’s denial of his motion to continue, and the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of first degree murder. Defendant also argues that the cumulative effect of the errors at trial warrants reversal of his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Rickey Benson, acting pro se, appeals from the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court summarily dismissing his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. After review, we affirm.

A physician disciplined by the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners challenges the reasonableness and necessity of the costs assessed against him. We find substantial and material evidence to support the cost assessment and affirm the chancery court’s decision affirming the Board’s final order.

We do not reach the merits of the appeal due to Appellant’s failure to comply with the briefing requirements outlined in Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a), and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee.

This appeal presents the question of whether, under the Health Care Liability Act, a party in a wrongful death action can rely on a prior beneficiary’s pre-suit notice after succeeding to that beneficiary’s interest in the wrongful death litigation. The trial court concluded that such reliance is permissible. We affirm.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee questions the trial court’s order denying his request for additional medical and temporary disability benefits. The employee suffered compensable injuries in a fall and received authorized medical benefits. The authorized physicians assigned work restrictions, which the employer’s representative testified could have been accommodated had the employee returned to work. After an expedited hearing, the trial court found the employee had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that he will likely prevail at trial and denied the employee’s request for additional benefits. The employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.

U.S. Attorney D. Michael Dunavant announced that he joined with Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division to file a brief on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae in support of the state’s appeal in the case challenging Gov. Bill Lee’s deployment of the National Guard in support of the Memphis Safe Task Force. The challenge to the deployment was filed by Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris and several lawmakers, who raised constitutional and statutory objections to the mobilization. A Davidson County chancellor granted a temporary injunction that is now on appeal. According to a press release, Dunavant and Shumate argued that the federal government has a substantial interest in the case because the injunction interferes with President Donald Trump’s request for the National Guard to support public safety operations in Memphis. The Tennessee Court of Appeals has expedited the case and scheduled oral arguments for March 5 in Nashville. Read the motion to file, the amicus brief and the defendants' opening brief.

DeVante Hill, an activist during the George Floyd and Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, announced on Martin Luther King Jr. Day that he will challenge U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Memphis, for the 9th Congressional District seat. According to the Daily Memphian, Hill announced his entry into the race at an MLK Day event at Canaan Baptist Church in Covington but it not clear if he will run in the August primaries or as an independent candidate. According to the paper, Hill was an intern in Cohen's congressional office and said he spoke with the congressman before entering the race.