Yoga, Mindfulness and Meditation for Legal Professionals will be held on April 18 from 9:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. CDT and offer attorneys evidence-based meditation and yoga techniques to reduce stress and improve professional performance. Designed specifically for legal professionals, the program will provide practical strategies to enhance focus, maintain composure in high-pressure situations, and cultivate a sustainable work-life balance. No prior experience in yoga or meditation is necessary. For more information and to register, visit TBA’s website.

After a prosecutor acknowledged that a Maryland man was wrongly deported to El Salvador due to an "administrative error," the Trump administration was ordered to return him to the United States. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis directed the administration return Kilmar Abrego Garcia in response to a lawsuit filed by the man and his family. Today, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the compliance deadline, which was to take effect at midnight tonight, The Hill reports. Roberts agreed to hold the deadline until the high court can resolve the administration’s emergency request to lift the lower court order. The administration argues that Garcia has ties to the MS-13 gang. A judge previously ruled he should not be deported to El Salvador due to concerns he would face harm there. His family says he does not have gang connections.

The TBA Young Lawyers Division clothing store is now open! Members can purchase mens or ladies polos and Champion t-shirts or crew neck sweatshirts in either royal blue or white. The clothing comes with the TBA Young Lawyers Division logo in the pocket square area. Orders placed before May 1 can be picked up at the TBA Convention in Franklin, June 11-14. Members also have the option to have the items shipped. Click here for more information and to order. See sample photos of the clothing options.

April is Help4TNMonth, an annual public awareness campaign to highlight the need for free and reduced fee legal services in Tennessee and spotlight organizations that provide these services throughout the year. The Tennessee Supreme Court Access to Justice Initiative is sharing updates via the Help4TNMonth digital campaign and calendar of events. For 2025, the initiative is focused on providing information for the public on “the where, why and how of legal resources across Tennessee.”

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Continental Building Co., a general contractor, entered into a subcontract with US Framing International for framing services on two student-housing projects. After a disagreement arose between the parties, US Framing left the project, and Continental filed an insurance claim on the premise that US Framing had breached the subcontract. US Framing then sued Continental and several of its officers, alleging that Continental had committed insurance fraud under Tennessee law. The district court granted Continental’s motion to dismiss because US Framing failed to plead any injury directly caused by Continental’s allegedly fraudulent insurance claim. We AFFIRM.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Dwayne Robinson of unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon. A district court imposed the Armed Career Criminal Act’s minimum punishment because it found that Robinson had previously committed three qualifying offenses on “occasions different from one another[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Robinson now raises four claims. He argues that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment by responding to a jury note without his counsel’s input. He argues that the court should have granted a mistrial after detectives implied that he had shot at someone. He argues that the jury instructions incorrectly told the jury that gun ownership is irrelevant to gun possession. Finally, he argues that the district court could not invoke the Armed Career Criminal Act because the court did not require the jury to resolve whether he had committed his prior offenses on different occasions. None of these arguments provides a basis for relief. Robinson did not properly object to the court’s response to the jury note, its failure to grant a mistrial, or its jury instructions. We thus review these challenges for plain error. Robinson also has not shown that the district court committed an obvious mistake on any of these issues. As for his sentencing challenge, intervening Supreme Court precedent has confirmed Robinson’s claim that the jury should have decided whether he committed his prior offenses on different occasions. But our court’s intervening precedent has made clear that this type of error can be harmless. And a gap of many years separated each of Robinson’s three crimes. The record thus leaves no doubt that he committed those crimes on different occasions and that this error was harmless here. We affirm.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. This appeal asks whether a corrections officer violated the Eighth Amendment both by using excessive force and by failing to obtain medical care afterward. The officer threw an inmate to the ground and kneed him in the back for failing to comply with an order. The district court denied the officer’s qualified-immunity defense at the summary-judgment stage. We agree with the district court that a reasonable jury could find that the officer maliciously used force to retaliate against the inmate for his disrespectful language. And this version of the facts would show that the officer violated clearly established law. On the other hand, we disagree with the district court that a reasonable jury could find that the officer deliberately disregarded the inmate’s medical needs. No evidence suggests that the officer even knew of the inmate’s injuries. All told, then, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

The Defendant, Sean Austin Miller, was convicted of aggravated sexual battery and received a sentence of ten years in confinement. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the Defendant touched the victim for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification. We affirm.

In this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9, we review the trial court’s order denying the motion of Defendant, Johntavius Griggs, for release from custody after he was found to be incompetent to stand trial for first degree murder due to his intellectual disability. The trial court found that the conclusion of psychiatrists designated by the Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (“DIDD”)1 that Defendant was ineligible for involuntary commitment was based on their misinterpretation of the statutory provisions governing the involuntary commitment of defendants found to be incompetent to stand trial due to intellectual disability. The trial court ordered additional evaluations by DIDD-designated physicians or psychologists to determine Defendant’s eligibility for involuntary commitment. Upon review, we conclude that the DIDD-designated psychiatrists misinterpreted the applicable statutory provisions in determining that Defendant did not meet the statutory requirements for involuntary commitment. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment denying Defendant’s motion for release from custody, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Pro se Petitioner, James Allen Gooch, Jr., appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his third motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, arguing that his sentence is illegal because the State failed to procure a valid arrest warrant. Upon our review, we conclude that the Petitioner has waived this claim for failure to raise it in his trial court motion and that, regardless, this court has already considered and rejected the Petitioner’s argument in a previous appeal. See State v. Gooch, No. M2017-01885-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 3414293 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 13, 2018), no perm. app. filed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.