The TBA’s annual Immigration Law Forum will take place May 15 at the new TBA office, located at 3010 Poston Ave., Nashville 37203. The in-person program will take place from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. CDT and offer up to six general credit hours. Stay tuned for more information coming soon.

The Tennessee Bar Association is now accepting nominations for a number of awards that will be presented at its 2026 Annual Convention. The Claudia Jack Award honors an outstanding public defender or court-appointed private practitioner who has served the legal community and clients in an exemplary fashion. It is named for the late Claudia Jack, a public defender and long-time champion of the poor and underprivileged. The Justice Frank F. Drowota III Outstanding Judicial Service Award is given to a judge or judicial branch official of a federal, state or local court in Tennessee who has demonstrated extraordinary devotion and dedication to the improvement of the law, the legal system and the administration of justice, as exemplified by the career of former Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Frank Drowota. Submit nominations for either of these two awards by April 6.

The 2026 Public Service Awards recognize outstanding commitment to access to justice in three categories: work performed by an attorney employed by an organization primarily involved in providing legal representation to the indigent, pro bono work performed by a private or corporate attorney and pro bono service by a Tennessee law student or recent graduate. Nominations for these awards are due April 17.

Finally, the Fourth Estate Award honors courageous reporting on justice and the law. Nominees must be Tennessee-based journalists and work must have been published in 2025. Read more about the award in TBA's press release. Nominations are due by April 30.

The Judicial Ethics Committee released an ethics opinion on March 6 in response to a request for guidance on whether a part-time judge or a pro tempore part-time judge may function as a legal analyst providing “gavel to gavel” coverage of pending cases for a local television news station. The committee found that such a role would not be allowed under the Rules of Judicial Conduct. In the opinion, the committee cites Rule 2.10, which allows a judge to make public statements in the course of official duties, such as explaining court procedures, but prohibits “any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court … .” The committee concludes that allowing a judge to comment on how a case should proceed, is handled or was resolved “allows both the public and the judiciary to question our judicial system and could reasonably affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a pending or impending matter.” Read the full opinion.

This is an appeal from a final order entered on November 3, 2025. The notice of appeal was not provided to the appropriate individual at the correctional facility to mail to the Appellate Court Clerk until December 26, 2025, 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.

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. Tayseer Yousef was a professional “fence” in a scheme to resell stolen cell phones obtained from armed robberies of retail stores. A jury convicted Yousef of two counts of interstate transportation of stolen goods and one count of conspiracy to transport stolen goods interstate. The district court sentenced him to 109 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Yousef challenges the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. Abida and Gulam Mukhdomi each pled guilty to one count of making false statements relating to health care matters with identical plea agreements containing appellate waivers. As part of each of their sentences, the district court imposed a fine of $125,000. On appeal, the Mukhdomis argue that the fines were procedurally and substantively unreasonable and unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. Because the Mukhdomis’ appellate waivers bar their procedural and substantive reasonableness challenges and because their Eighth Amendment challenge, even if not barred, fails on the merits, we affirm the district court’s imposition of the fines.

The pro se petitioner, Dewaine Love, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that he is entitled to relief because his multiple convictions violate due process and double jeopardy protections and that his sentence is unlawful because it was imposed without the preparation of a presentence report. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the petitioner’s notice of appeal was untimely and that the interest of justice does not mandate waiver of the requirement. The appeal is dismissed.

Defendant, Kevin Smith, appeals his conviction for vandalism of property valued at $60,000 or more but less than $250,000, for which he received a thirty-year sentence as a career offender. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In March 2019, the Petitioner, Sean William Lee, pleaded guilty to attempting to violate the Sex Offender Registry Act (“SORA”), and the trial court ordered him to serve 270 days in jail. In July 2025, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that a federal preliminary injunction issued in his favor applied retroactively and rendered void his conviction for attempting to violate the registry. He also alleged that the State and his trial counsel failed to give him proper notice that he was required to register as a sex offender. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as untimely. The Petitioner appeals, maintaining on appeal that his conviction for attempting to violate SORA is void, and that he was not properly informed by the State or his trial counsel that he would be required to register as a sex offender. After review, we affirm the post- conviction court’s judgment.

The Defendant was indicted for one count of first degree premeditated murder for the shooting death of the victim, Michael Hawkins, Jr. Prior to trial, the Defendant filed two motions to suppress his statement to the police, both of which the trial court denied. The trial court granted the Defendant’s motion to suppress a photographic line-up identification. The case proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury convicted the Defendant of second degree murder. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to twenty years of imprisonment. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress his statement. The Defendant also contends that the trial court erred by allowing one of the trial witnesses to identify him in court. Upon our review, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction and sentence. We remand this matter for the entry of a corrected judgment order.