TBA's Indigent Representation Primer series recently featured two articles that provide basics about Tennessee's system for appointed counsel as well as context for discussions about increased resources for indigent representation. The initial primer article introduces the basics of our state's system and the situations that require counsel be appointed for individuals unable to afford representation. The second primer article highlights background and data about Tennessee's Indigent Representation Program, including how courts determine and assign counsel for indigent defendants and vulnerable individuals. Both items include information about the General Assembly's 2024 increased funding for indigent representation — a step in the right direction, but still leaving a significant gap to fill.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arises from a criminal investigation of Plaintiffs for a fire that occurred at their restaurant in Westland, Michigan. In Case No. 19-1882, Defendants John Adams and Michael Reddy Jr. appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim on qualified immunity grounds. In Case No. 19-1870, Defendant Michael Reddy Sr. appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. And in Case No. 19-1857, Defendant Richard Sanchez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment unlawful search and seizure claim on qualified immunity grounds. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss Reddy Sr.’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and affirm the district court’s order with respect to the other Defendants.

The Defendant, Yancey Lee Williams II, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, specifically, challenging the element of premeditation; (2) the trial court erred by finding that he was engaged in unlawful activity and thereby omitting the “no duty to retreat” language from the self-defense instruction; (3) the prosecutor made improper and inflammatory comments regarding religion and race during closing arguments; and (4) plain error occurred when the State failed to provide pretrial documentation of a witness’s statement to law enforcement despite an order being in place directing such disclosure. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In Tennessee, is there ever a time when a prosecutor would not be allowed to dismiss a case after indictment? Politics aside, the controversy over the United States Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn presents important issues regarding the scope of authority between prosecutors and courts.

READLER, Circuit Judge. Lacking a written plea agreement preserving any issues for appeal, Rishad Williams pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing a firearm as a felon. The district court sentenced Williams to 100 months’ imprisonment based in part on a sentence enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with a felony offense. See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2024). Despite the nature of his plea, Williams now asks us to address a host of arguments, from violations of his Second, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment rights to the improper application of a sentence enhancement. Because Williams pleaded guilty unconditionally, we do not reach his Second and Fourth Amendment arguments. As for his Sixth Amendment claim, we follow our usual practice of not deciding on direct appeal whether a defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel in district court. That leaves Williams’s sentencing argument, for which ample evidence supports application of the enhancement. Accordingly, we affirm.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. State prisoners who seek federal habeas relief generally must file their petitions within a year of the date that their state convictions become final. But prisoners who do not file on time may seek to equitably toll this statute of limitations if they prove that they acted diligently and that extraordinary circumstances caused the tardy filing.Here, Christopher Hemwall claims that he filed his habeas petition five months late because of the health difficulties of his attorney and his attorney’s child. But the district court rejected this claim because Hemwall failed to show that these health difficulties caused Hemwall to file his petition after the deadline. We agree. Even if we assume that the difficulties could qualify as extraordinary circumstances, Hemwall did not establish a causal connection between them and the late filing. We affirm.

Father overpaid child support, and the trial court ordered the overpayment to be credited against future monthly payments. After the judgment became final, Father filed a motion for relief from judgment under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60, seeking a judgment against Mother rather than credit against future child support payments. Father also sought to depose three State employees in an effort to determine why certain payments had been released to Mother instead of being held by the State. The trial court denied the Rule 60 motion, granted a motion to quash the depositions, and denied a motion to alter or amend. We affirm.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s closure of the decedent’s estate. Due to the deficiencies in appellant’s appellate brief, we dismiss the appeal. Appellees’ request for frivolous appeal damages is denied.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has announced two leadership appointments effective Aug. 1. Lynda M. Hill will begin serving as the court's newest U.S. magistrate judge following the retirement of Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes. Hill has served as clerk of court for the Middle District since 2020 and previously practiced at Frost Brown Todd LLC in Nashville and Miller & Martin PLLC in Chattanooga. In announcing Hill's selection, Chief District Judge William L. Campbell said, "The District Judges were pleased to select Judge Hill from a group of extremely well-qualified candidates. She has served the Middle District of Tennessee with distinction as Clerk of Court, and we are confident she will continue to do so as a magistrate judge." Additionally, Vicki R. Kinkade has been appointed clerk of court. Kinkade brings more than 40 years of service to the federal judiciary, including more than two decades as the court's chief deputy clerk. One of her most significant contributions was during the design and construction of the Fred D. Thompson U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building. Her efforts helped ensure that the courthouse serves the needs of judges, litigants, attorneys, court staff and the public while providing a secure, modern and efficient environment for the administration of justice.

A public investiture for Hill will take place on Sept. 24 at 3:30 p.m. CDT at the Fred D. Thompson U. S. Courthouse and Federal Building, Courtroom 6B, located at 719 Church Street in Nashville. A reception will follow. Learn more in the press releases from the court.