CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Adrian Galvez-Bravo, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Galvez-Bravo contends that the Board’s order ignored his core argument and deviated from other Board decisions. While we have jurisdiction to review Galvez-Bravo’s legal challenges to the Board’s order, we conclude that the Board engaged in reasoned decisionmaking in denying his motion. Accordingly, we deny his petition for review. Galvez-Bravo entered the United States in 1994. Save for a brief return to Mexico to marry his wife, he has lived in the Memphis area, working as a subcontractor. The couple has three children, two of whom are U.S. citizens. Following Galvez-Bravo’s brush with the law in 2013, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him, alleging he was a noncitizen present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). After conceding the charge, Galvez-Bravo sought cancellation of removal under § 240A of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See id. § 1229b(b). For these reasons, we deny the petition for review.

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Adrian Galvez-Bravo, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Galvez-Bravo contends that the Board’s order ignored his core argument and deviated from other Board decisions. While we have jurisdiction to review Galvez-Bravo’s legal challenges to the Board’s order, we conclude that the Board engaged in reasoned decisionmaking in denying his motion. Accordingly, we deny his petition for review. Galvez-Bravo entered the United States in 1994. Save for a brief return to Mexico to marry his wife, he has lived in the Memphis area, working as a subcontractor. The couple has three children, two of whom are U.S. citizens. Following Galvez-Bravo’s brush with the law in 2013, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him, alleging he was a noncitizen present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). After conceding the charge, Galvez-Bravo sought cancellation of removal under § 240A of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See id. § 1229b(b). For these reasons, we deny the petition for review.

A Tipton County jury convicted the Petitioner, Howard Jefferson Atkins, of first degree premeditated murder in 2000, and the trial court imposed a life sentence. The Petitioner later applied for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear his case because the juvenile court did not make the necessary statutory findings to transfer his case to the circuit court. The habeas corpus court summarily denied the application, finding that the Petitioner failed to state a colorable claim for relief. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The Petitioner, Queshan Brooks, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Upon our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Christopher L. Dowlen, appeals the Robertson County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation and requiring him to serve his original four-year sentence for his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender in confinement. The Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement (1) by finding sufficient evidence that the Defendant possessed a firearm in violation of his probation, and (2) by failing to consider whether full revocation of his sentence would serve the “ends of justice” and “best interest” of the Defendant. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Andrew Martin Robbs, pleaded guilty to driving under the influence per se, third offense, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. § 55-10-401 (2020). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days suspended to probation after 120 days in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant presents a certified question of law challenging the sufficiency of the affidavit of complaint in support of the arrest warrant. Because the certified question fails to identify the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant, Nathaniel Scott Robinson, pled guilty to the offense of statutory rape, and the trial court sentenced him to a term of six years. The court suspended the sentence and placed the Defendant on probation. Thereafter, the Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for resale. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the suspended sentence and ordered the Defendant to serve the six-year sentence in custody. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court should have considered alternatives to fully revoking his suspended sentence. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Hamblen County jury convicted the Defendant, Joshua James Smith, of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve twenty-three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges his conviction and sentence, but the State argues that this appeal should be dismissed because his notice of appeal was untimely. Upon our review, we agree that the Defendant’s notice of appeal was untimely and that the “interest of justice” does not require us to waive the timely filing requirement. We respectfully dismiss the appeal.

The Defendant, Thomas Dequan Solomon, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. Specifically, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by basing its decision merely on proof of alleged criminal conduct prior to the filing of formal charges and without considering his history of supervision while on probation. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A pro se litigant sought to appeal the trial court's denial of a recusal motion. She did not follow the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2.03. Therefore, we dismiss the case.