LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Corwin Jett pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Almost three years passed between his commission of the crime and his arrest. In the interim, he moved to Atlanta, got a job, and had no criminal encounters with the police. Yet, after his arrest in Michigan, Jett attempted to smuggle drugs into jail, sought drugs from other inmates, and was caught with drugs in his cell. The district court denied Jett an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction and denied his request for a downward variance. Jett argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM.

The Defendant, Marcus Anthony Pearson, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court did not sufficiently set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to each argument raised in his Rule 36.1 motion. Additionally, the Defendant contends that his consecutive sentences are illegal because he was not resentenced in accordance with this court’s prior order, and as such, adequate Wilkerson findings were never made to support the imposition of consecutive sentences. Lastly, he claims the amended judgment forms were not entered in a timely fashion. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Memphis Police Chief C.J. Davis has told city commissioners that roughly 700 to 900 federal law enforcement officers are currently in Memphis as part of the Memphis Safe Task Force, with National Guard deployments expected by Friday. Davis said the Guard’s role will focus on visibility and deterrence rather than direct policing, and MPD is coordinating with federal analysts to identify gang activity. According to the Daily Memphian, Davis emphasized that federal assistance is long overdue but not a permanent solution to crime, and noted that both local and federal agencies are tracking overlapping enforcement data. Davis also highlighted falling crime rates — including a decline in homicides and aggravated assaults — and pointed to expanded downtown surveillance and new command centers as key safety improvements. The Commercial Appeal also reports on the developments.

The Defendant was convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court of disrupting a lawful meeting, a Class A misdemeanor, and received an eleven-month, twenty-nine-day sentence to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction and that the statute prohibiting disruption of a lawful meeting is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to one minor child. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Appellee filed a petition in juvenile court seeking to terminate a father’s parental rights. After a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition and entered an order terminating the father’s parental rights based on the grounds of (1) abandonment by failure to support, (2) abandonment by failure to visit, (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody and financial responsibility, and (4) failure by a putative father to timely file a petition to establish paternity. The trial court also determined termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. We affirm the grounds for termination. However, we conclude that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact regarding its best interest analysis. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s decision that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This case originates in a dispute over the administration of two trusts created for Joseph Peter Meersman, Jr. (“Meersman”). Meersman has filed multiple lawsuits against former trustees Michael Castellarin (“Castellarin”) and Regions Bank (“Regions”) (“Defendants,” collectively) alleging that they mismanaged the trusts. The trusts were terminated by court order in 2015. Laila Rumsey (“Rumsey”), Meersman’s partner, sued Defendants in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) alleging that she too was damaged by Defendants’ actions. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the Trial Court granted based on the statute of limitations. Rumsey filed a motion to alter or amend within thirty days of entry of judgment but, contrary to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59.04, did not serve Defendants within thirty days. The Trial Court denied Rumsey’s motion as untimely. Rumsey appeals. Rule 59.04 requires such a motion be both “filed and served” within thirty days of entry of judgment. Rumsey failed to serve Defendants timely. Therefore, Rumsey’s motion to alter or amend was untimely and did not toll the time in which to file a notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appeals the circuit court’s findings that her minor child is dependent and neglected and a victim of severe abuse. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The appellant appeals the circuit court’s finding that her minor children are dependent and neglected. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal concerns a disciplinary action taken against a prisoner. Rodger Broadway (“Petitioner”), an inmate at Turney Center Industrial Complex, was found guilty of Class B Defiance by the prison’s disciplinary board (“the Board”) for cursing at another inmate while in the gym. Petitioner, pro se, filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Hickman County (“the Trial Court”) against the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) and multiple officials (“Respondents,” collectively). The Trial Court upheld the Board’s decision. Petitioner filed a motion to alter or amend, which the Trial Court denied as untimely even though Petitioner delivered the motion to the appropriate individual at his correctional facility within the time fixed for filing. We vacate the Trial Court’s judgment and remand for the Trial Court to consider Petitioner’s motion to alter or amend on its merits.