Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett has issued a warning about a new email spoofing scam affecting residents. The fraudulent emails, which have the subject line "Exciting News!", falsely claim that Hargett has filed a sponsorship on behalf of the recipient. Recipients are instructed to watch for a follow-up email from the secretary's office, furthering the deception. Hargett's office emphasizes the importance of vigilance against such scams, which can lead to personal information theft. The public is urged to verify any suspicious communications before taking action.

The TBA Intellectual Property Section will continue its webcast series on March 19 with a session on "The Impact of AI on Prior Art.” The webcast will run from 11 a.m. to noon CDT. Watch for more details coming soon.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Duane Gary Underwood, II appeals his criminal conviction for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine,possession with intent to distribute 5 grams or more of methamphetamine, possession of a stolen firearm, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Underwood raises ten issues on appeal: (1) whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) is unconstitutional, (2) whether the officers who detained Underwood lacked reasonable suspicion to do so, (3) whether Underwood was unreasonably searched, (4) whether a search warrant for Underwood’s phone was invalid, (5) whether the trial court improperly admitted a set of photos and text messages under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), (6) whether the court erred in disallowing inquiry into potential Rule 404(b) evidence during voir dire, (7) whether the evidence was insufficient to support Underwood’s convictions, (8) whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing portions of grand jury testimony to be read into the record pursuant to Rule 803(5), (9) whether the jury instructions were improper, and (10) whether Underwood’s conviction should be overturned because the Government attorney was unlicensed. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM.

The Defendant, Bernard Strowder, pled guilty to reckless aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The parties agreed that he would be sentenced to an effective term of ten years but that the trial court would decide the manner in which the sentence would be served. After a hearing, the trial court ordered that the full sentence be served in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the denial of an alternative sentence, but the State argues that this appeal should be dismissed because his notice of appeal was untimely. Upon our review, we agree that the Defendant’s notice of appeal was untimely and that the interest of justice does not require us to waive the timely filing requirement. We respectfully dismiss the appeal.

An out-of-network hospital sued a TennCare managed care organization (“MCO”), seeking additional payment for healthcare services rendered to the MCO’s members. The MCO moved for summary judgment on the hospital’s claims for payment for post-stabilization services provided to both existing and retroactive members. With respect to the existing members, the MCO argued that the hospital could not show that the MCO had a legal obligation to pay for the post-stabilization services at issue. So the hospital could not establish that the MCO was unjustly enriched. The trial court agreed and summarily dismissed these claims. It also certified the dismissal as final. We vacate the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal arises from the termination of a tenured teacher. The trial court determined that the school district terminated the teacher without legal cause and ordered that she be reinstated with backpay but denied her request for attorney’s fees. Finding that the teacher waived any issue pertaining to whether the school board followed the procedural requirements of the Teacher Tenure Act, and that she engaged in conduct which constituted two of the three charges levied, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

The parental rights of Chasity H.' ("Mother") were terminated by the Knox County Juvenile Court ("the trial court") on January 22, 2024. Mother appeals, arguing that the trial court erred ni finding that termination of her parental rights was ni the best interest of the children. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court's decision.

Judges across the county continue to rule on challenges to presidential executive orders. A federal judge in Washington state has blocked the Trump administration from suspending the U.S. refugee program. By contrast, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., declined to reinstate refugee funding in a case brought by Catholic bishops, The Hill reports. In another case, a federal judge in Maryland blocked immigration agents from conducting enforcement operations in houses of worship for a handful of religious groups, according to the Associated Press. With regard to the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a federal judge in Washington, D.C. blocked the administration’s freeze of federal aid and a judge in Maryland blocked DOGE access to the Department of Education and Office of Personnel Management. The administration lays out its arguments for these changes in the orders, which are available on the White House website.

A wife appeals from the final judgment in a protracted divorce. Based on the proof at trial, the court classified and divided the marital estate, adopted a permanent parenting plan, set monthly child support, and awarded the husband retroactive support back to the date of the divorce filing. The wife raises numerous issues on appeal, many of which we deem waived for failure to comply with our procedural rules. Because the final order lacks sufficient factual findings with respect to the calculation of retroactive child support, we vacate that award and remand for additional findings. Otherwise, we affirm.

Father appeals the termination of his parental rights. The trial court found three statutory grounds for termination: abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to support, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court also concluded the termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child. Because clear and convincing evidence supports that at least one of the termination grounds exists and that termination is in the child’s best interest, we affirm the termination of Father’s parental rights.