HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Appellant Prime Financial seeks reversal of the bankruptcy court’s approval of a settlement agreement between the trustee of debtor TAJ Graphics Enterprises, LLC’s, bankruptcy estate, debtor’s owner Robert Kattula, and certain parties related to Kattula. Prime Financial argues that the bankruptcy and district courts applied an incorrect standard for evaluating a Chapter 7 bankruptcy settlement and improperly valued certain assets it contends belong in the bankruptcy estate. Prime Financial also raises several procedural concerns. We AFFIRM.

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. Ricco Saine was convicted of two counts of knowingly possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. On appeal, he challenges his conviction on two grounds: First, he argues the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence seized from his truck following a search based on a drug dog’s positive alert. Second, he argues the district court erred by admitting a text message because it is improper propensity evidence. We disagree and affirm Saine’s conviction.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Dr. Flavia Pichiorri published many articles while working as a research scientist at The Ohio State University. Years after Pichiorri left Ohio State, though, a university committee found that she had committed research misconduct in some of these articles. The committee later informed the relevant medical journals and her current employer of the misconduct. Pichiorri disagreed with the committee’s findings and believed that its disclosures to these third parties violated the Constitution. But the district court correctly found that sovereign immunity shielded some of the university defendants from this suit and that Pichiorri’s other due-process claims failed on the merits. We thus affirm the dismissal of Pichiorri’s complaint.

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. After losing in state court, HRT Enterprises sued the City of Detroit in federal court under a de facto takings theory. The district court held that the state court’s prior determinations did not bar this suit and granted summary judgment in favor of HRT without deciding when the taking had occurred. The first jury determined the date of the taking and awarded HRT $4.25 million, but the district court granted the City’s motion for a remittitur and reduced the award to $2 million. The City rejected the remittitur and elected for a new trial on damages. The second jury awarded HRT $1.97 million. On appeal, the City argues that the case is not ripe because HRT’s case rests on hypothetical facts, not an actual taking, and even if it is ripe, the state court’s prior determinations bar this suit. The City also argues that the district court erred in finding as a matter of law that its actions constituted a de facto taking and that it faced unfair prejudice at trial because it had to concede that a taking occurred on a particular date even though it maintained that no taking had ever occurred. HRT cross-appeals, arguing that the district court’s remittitur was an abuse of discretion because the evidence in the first trial supported that jury’s award of damages. We affirm.

DAVIS, Circuit Judge. Michael Hester was granted parole after serving less than the aggregate term of his sentences on multiple convictions. He remained in prison, however, for four months beyond his parole release date because of a detainer lodged by Chester County, Tennessee, law enforcement officials. Based on this delayed release, he sued Chester County; county officials including the sheriff, a deputy sheriff, and the jail administrator; several state officials; and ten John Doe defendants, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hester alleged that the Chester County defendants knowingly or recklessly used an invalid detainer warrant to prevent his release on parole, and in doing so violated his right to due process under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and violated the Tennessee constitution and state law. The district court granted the county defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Hester timely appealed. We AFFIRM.

PER CURIAM. Kevin Clay and his best friend founded Theramedical, a pharmaceutical sales company that specialized in compounded prescriptions. But unlike other pharmaceutical companies, Theramedical marketed its compounds to prospective patients, not doctors. The pitch: the patient would receive a “commission”—a cut of the insurance reimbursement—for each prescription filled. To facilitate this payment scheme, Theramedical partnered with a pharmacy that agreed to give Theramedical a portion of the insurance reimbursements. Theramedical then heavily recruited potential patients, or “sales representatives,” from a local employer, whose insurance plan covered the prescriptions. And Theramedical directed the representatives to a doctor who readily doled out the prescriptions. Within just two years, Theramedical made millions of dollars. To minimize his taxable income, Clay established a public charity but treated its funds as if they were his own. Eventually, authorities caught wind of Theramedical’s activities and indicted Clay, along with others. A jury convicted Clay of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, healthcare fraud, and making a false statement to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The district court sentenced him to 51 months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay nearly $7 million in restitution. Clay appeals. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Petitioner, Michael Dewayne Wright, Jr., was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder, voluntary manslaughter, and first degree premeditated murder, for which he is serving two consecutive life sentences. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based upon (1) trial counsel’s conflict of interest stemming from representing two other suspects at the same time he represented Petitioner; (2) trial counsel’s failure to compel the same two suspects to testify at trial; (3) trial counsel’s failure to consult or call as a witness a firearms expert; (4) trial counsel’s failure to conduct an adequate investigation and prepare for trial; and (5) the cumulative effect of these errors. Petitioner also asserts that the trial court failed in its duty to inquire about trial counsel’s conflict of interest. Finally, Petitioner asserts that the trial court failed to adjudicate Petitioner’s request for DNA testing pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act (“the DNA Act”). Following a thorough review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

The pro se Petitioner, Antonio Kendrick, appeals the Weakley County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Petitioner, Andrew Levi Jefferson, appeals the denial of his petition seeking post- conviction relief from his guilty-pleaded convictions in Coffee County Circuit Court case numbers 40579, 42946, 43169, and 43688. Petitioner pleaded guilty to two counts of sale of 0.5 grams or more of a Schedule II controlled substance; possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to sell or deliver; possession of 0.5 grams or more of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to sell or deliver; and possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, for which he is serving an effective twenty-five-year sentence. On appeal, Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to (1) investigate evidence tampering by a police officer; (2) file several motions to suppress; and (3) adequately explain the plea agreement. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post- conviction court.

The U.S. Senate approved the nomination of Braden Boucek as the new U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee late last week by a vote of 53-43. The nomination was included as part of a package of 97 executive nominees, according to a press release from the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Boucek previously worked with the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF). In a statement released by that group, Boucek said, “I am thrilled to be starting this new chapter as U.S. Attorney and I cannot thank President Trump enough for the nomination.” He also thanked the SLF team, saying, “I truly believe that I wouldn’t be in this position if not for my time there.” Boucek joined SLF in 2021 as senior vice president of litigation, where he handled constitutional cases and helped shape policy initiatives designed to advance individual liberty and limited government. He was nominated to the federal post in July.