alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

V. ) CR. No.: 2:06cr209-WKW

)

BRIDGET Y. TAYLOR )

NOTICE OF INTENT TO CHANGE PLEA

COMES NOW the Defendant, BRIDGET Y. TAYLOR, by and through undersigned

counsel, Kevin L. Butler, and notifies the Court of her intent to change her previously entered plea

of not guilty to guilty. Defendant waives her right to plea in front of a district judge and consents

to do so before a magistrate judge.

Dated this 4 day of October, 2006. th

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Kevin L. Butler

KEVIN L. BUTLER

First Assistant Federal Defender

201 Monroe Street, Suite 407

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 834-2099

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail: kevin_butler@fd.org

AZ Bar Code: 014138

Case 2:06-cr-00209-MHT-CSC Document 18 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

V. ) CR. No.: 2:06cr209-WKW

)

BRIDGET Y. TAYLOR )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 4, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: 

Verne Speirs, Esquire

Assistant United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Kevin L. Butler

KEVIN L. BUTLER

First Assistant Federal Defender

201 Monroe Street, Suite 407

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 834-2099

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail: kevin_butler@fd.org

AZ Bar Code: 014138

Case 2:06-cr-00209-MHT-CSC Document 18 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### § 927.45 Contributions.

The Fresh Pear Committee or the Processed Pear Committee may accept voluntary contributions, but these shall only be used to pay expenses incurred pursuant to § 927.47. Furthermore, such contributions shall be free from any encumbrances by the donor, and the Fresh Pear Committee or the Processed Pear Committee shall retain complete control of their use.
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear at 70 FR 30897, May 31, 2005; 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012; 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 10.20 Purpose of the procedures.

These procedures establish methods for the conduct of hearings and administrative review of questions concerning an individual's eligibility for an access authorization and/or an employment clearance pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Executive Orders 10450, 10865, and 12968 when a resolution favorable to the individual cannot be made on the basis of the interview or other investigation.

[64 FR 15642, Apr. 1, 1999]
#### § 501.8 Soliciting, vending, debt collection, and distribution of handbills.

The soliciting of alms and contributions, commercial soliciting and vending of all kinds, the display or distribution of commercial advertising, or the collecting of private debts, in or on Research Center property, is prohibited. This section does not apply to national or local drives for funds for welfare, health, and other purposes sponsored or approved by the Agricultural Research Service, concessions, or personal notices posted by employees on authorized bulletin boards. Distribution of material such as pamphlets, handbills, and flyers or the posting of mateirals on bulletin boards or elsewhere, is prohibited without prior approval of authorized individuals.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3049 

To suspend temporarily the duty on shield asy-steering gear. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

Mr. HATCH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on shield asy-steering gear. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHIELD ASY-STEERING GEAR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.87.01 Steering gear assemblies for 

single-pinion constant-ratio 

electronic power assisted 

steering systems, rated at 80 

amperes at 12 V, designed 

for use in hybrid motor vehicles of heading 8703 (provided for in subheading 

8708.99.73) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 3049 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
311.7301 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 352.211-3, Paperwork Reduction Act, in

solicitations, contracts, and orders that require a contractor to collect the same information from 10

or more persons.

Parent topic: Subpart 311.73 - Contractor Collection of Information
#### BENZ & Cie v. FROELICH.

(No. 6057.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Appeal from Special Term, New York County. Action by Benz & Cie against Jesse Froelich. From an order granting a motion for commission on written interrogatories, defendant appeals. Modified and affirmed.

Jesse S. Epstein, of New York City, for appellant.

Charles Oakes, of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from should be modified, by allowing the defendant either to join in the commission with written cross-interrogatories or to attend and cross-examine the witnesses orally as he shall elect. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.
# Subpart 1443.2 - Change Orders

**Parent topic:**PART 1443 - CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS

## 1443.205 Contract clauses.

BPCs may establish procedures, when appropriate, for authorizing the CO to vary the 30-day period for submission of requests for adjustment prescribed by FAR 43.205.
Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 42 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 1 of 1
Bureau of Indian Affairs

NEPA EIS

ALTERNATIVE G DIRECT EFFECTS

TRAFFIC VOLUMES - TYPICAL WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK

FIGURE

4.8-1 Map Document: (S:\Projects\5477001\DEIS\MXDs\Transportation&Traffic\Section4\Fig4.8-1_Direct_Effects_AltG_No_action.mxd)

10/18/2006 -- 10:28:20 AM

Sources:

Traffic Impact Study - C&S, 2006
Bureau of Indian Affairs

NEPA EIS

ALTERNATIVE G DIRECT EFFECTS

LEVEL OF SERVICE - TYPICAL WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK

FIGURE

4.8-2 Map Document: (S:\Projects\5477001\DEIS\MXDs\Transportation&Traffic\Section4\Fig4.8-2_Direct_Effects_AltG_LOS.mxd)

10/18/2006 -- 10:29:53 AM

Sources:

Traffic Impact Study - C&S, 2006
Bureau of Indian Affairs

NEPA EIS

INDIRECT EFFECTS -TRAFFIC VOLUMES

TYPICAL WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK

FIGURE

4.8-3 Map Document: (S:\Projects\5477001\DEIS\MXDs\Transportation&Traffic\Section4\Fig4.8-3_Indirect_Effects_TrafficVolumes.mxd)

10/18/2006 -- 10:30:08 AM

Sources:

Traffic Impact Study - C&S, 2006
Bureau of Indian Affairs

NEPA EIS

INDIRECT EFFECTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE

TYPICAL WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK

FIGURE

4.8-4 Map Document: (S:\Projects\5477001\DEIS\MXDs\Transportation&Traffic\Section4\Fig4.8-4_Indirect_Effects_LOS.mxd)

10/18/2006 -- 10:30:29 AM

Sources:

Traffic Impact Study - C&S, 2006
Bureau of Indian Affairs

NEPA EIS

BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES

TYPICAL WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK

FIGURE

4.8-5 Map Document: (S:\Projects\5477001\DEIS\MXDs\Transportation&Traffic\Section4\Fig4.8-5_Background_traffic_volumes.mxd)

10/18/2006 -- 10:30:58 AM

Sources:

Traffic Impact Study - C&S, 2006
Bureau of Indian Affairs

NEPA EIS

BACKGROUND LEVEL OF SERVICE

TYPICAL WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK

FIGURE

4.8-6 Map Document: (S:\Projects\5477001\DEIS\MXDs\Transportation&Traffic\Section4\Fig4.8-6_Background_LOS.mxd)

10/18/2006 -- 10:31:25 AM

Sources:

Traffic Impact Study - C&S, 2006
Bureau of Indian Affairs

NEPA EIS

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT - TRAFFIC VOLUMES

TYPICAL WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK

FIGURE

4.8-7 Map Document: (S:\Projects\5477001\DEIS\MXDs\Transportation&Traffic\Section4\Fig4.8-7_Program_develop_TrafficVolumes.mxd)

10/18/2006 -- 10:31:47 AM

Sources:

Traffic Impact Study - C&S, 2006
Bureau of Indian Affairs

NEPA EIS

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT - LEVEL OF SERVICE

TYPICAL WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK

FIGURE

4.8-8 Map Document: (S:\Projects\5477001\DEIS\MXDs\Transportation&Traffic\Section4\Fig4.8-8_Program_develop_LOS.mxd)

10/18/2006 -- 10:32:10 AM

Sources:

Traffic Impact Study - C&S, 2006
911.604 Solicitation provision and contract clause.       (a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 952.211-70, Priorities and Allocations (Atomic Energy), in solicitations that will result in the placement of rated orders for authorized DOE atomic energy programs.          (b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 952.211-71, Priorities and Allocations (Atomic Energy), in contracts that are placed in support of authorized DOE atomic energy programs.          (c) The use of the provisions at 952.211-70 and the clause at 952.211-71 is optional for industrial delivery orders of $5,000 or less.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 911.6 - Priorities and Allocations
§ 110.21 General license for the export of special nuclear material. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export the following to any country not listed in § 110.28: ( 1 ) Low-enriched uranium as residual contamination (17.5 parts per million or less) in any item or substance.
( 2 ) Plutonium containing 80 percent or more by weight of plutonium-238 in cardiac pacemakers.
( 3 ) Special nuclear material, other than plutonium-236 and plutonium-238, in sensing components in instruments, if no more than 3 grams of enriched uranium or 0.1 gram of plutonium or uranium-233 are contained in each sensing component.
( 4 ) Plutonium-236 and plutonium-238 when contained in a device, or a source for use in a device, in quantities of less than 3.7 × 10−3 TBq (100 millicuries) of alpha activity (189 micrograms plutonium-236, 5.88 milligrams plutonium-238) per device or source.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export the following to any country not listed in § 110.28 or § 110.29: ( 1 ) Special nuclear material, other than plutonium-236 and plutonium-238, in individual shipments of 0.001 effective kilogram or less (e.g., 1.0 gram of plutonium, uranium-233 or uranium-235, or 10 kilograms of 1 percent enriched uranium), not to exceed 0.1 effective kilogram per calendar year to any one country.
( 2 ) Special nuclear material in fuel elements as replacements for damaged or defective unirradiated fuel elements previously exported under a specific license, subject to the same terms as the original export license and the condition that the replaced fuel elements must be returned to the United States within a reasonable time period.
( 3 ) Uranium, enriched to less than 20 percent in uranium-235, in the form of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) heels in cylinders being returned to suppliers in EURATOM or the United Kingdom.
( c ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export plutonium-236 or plutonium-238 to any country listed in § 110.30 in individual shipments of 1 gram or less, not to exceed 100 grams per calendar year to any one country.
( d ) The general licenses in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section do not authorize the export of special nuclear material in radioactive waste.
[49 FR 47198, Dec. 3, 1984, as amended at 58 FR 13003, Mar. 9, 1993; 59 FR 48997, Sept. 26, 1994; 60 FR 37563, July 21, 1995; 65 FR 70290, Nov. 22, 2000; 70 FR 46066, Aug. 9, 2005; 75 FR 44087, July 28, 2010; 85 FR 86795, Dec. 31, 2020]
ALD

- 166 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 15

- 1547

___________ IN RE: LEON GREEN,

Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States Di strict Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Related to M.D. Pa. Cr. No. 1

- 13

- cr - 00210

- 006)

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

April 16, 2015 Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : May 5, 2015 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM Petitioner, Leon Green, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on March 9, 2015, asking us to order the District Court to remove his counsel of record and to dismiss the criminal charges against him. Green contends that the District Court lacks jurisdiction over him because he is a free Moorish American national and a member of the free Moorish American Nation.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not consti tute binding precedent.2

“Mandamus provides a drastic remedy that a court should grant only in
extraordin ary circumstances in response to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of power.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005)(quotation omitted). To demonstrate that mandamus is appropriate, a petitioner must establish that he has a “clear and indisputable” right to the issuance of the writ and that he has “no other adequate means to obtain the desired relief.” Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996)(superseded in part on other grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c)). Green has not provided competent authority supporting his arguments. In addition, Green cannot show that he has no adequate means to obtain the desired relief. Green brought a motion to dismiss in the District Court based on the same arguments raised in his petition for a writ of mandamus. The District Court considered his arguments and denied that motion. Green also filed a pro se motion to have his counsel removed, which was denied. All of these issues are being addressed in the District Court and m ay be raised on appeal. Green may not use a mandamus petition as a substitute for the appeals process. See In re Briscoe , 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d Cir. 2006).
#### Williminha Donlin, as Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel T. Donlin, Deceased, Appellant, v. Hemingway Transport, Inc., Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 25, 1969, as, on reconsideration, adhered to the original determination denying her a general preference for trial. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $10 costs and disbursements, and general preference granted. In our opinion, the conflict of medical opinion as to the causal relationship between the accident and the death of plaintiff’s husband must be resolved at a trial *(Koblein*v. *City of New York,*30 A D 2d 965; *Martin*v. *Suarez,*30 A D 2d 947; *Kahane*v. *Meehan,*24 A D 2d 768; cf. *Kennedy*v. *Jere J. Cronin, Inc.,*33 A D 2d 564). Christ, Acting F. J., Hopkins, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
#### Blount *v.*The State.

July 15, 1913.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge J. B. Park. Hancock superior court. April 30, 1913.

*John B. Cooper*and *T.M. Hunt,*for plaintiff in error.

*T. 8. Felder, attorney-general,*and *J. F. Pottle, solicitor-general,*contra.

Hill, J.

There are no assignments of alleged errors of law requiring a new trial, and the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 78 FR 34247, June 7, 2013.

§ 1.27 Office of Congressional Affairs. The Office of Congressional Affairs— ( a ) Advises the Chairman, the Commission, and NRC staff on all NRC relations with Congress and the views of Congress toward NRC policies, plans and activities;
( b ) Maintains liaison with Congressional committees and members of Congress on matters of interest to NRC;
( c ) Serves as primary contact point for all NRC communications with Congress;
( d ) Coordinates NRC internal activities with Congress;
( e ) Plans, develops, and manages NRC's legislative programs; and
( f ) Monitors legislative proposals, bills, and hearings.
[57 FR 1639, Jan. 15, 1992]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-20520

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL FRANCIS PALMA,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CV-1966

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The district court dismissed Mr. Palma’s suit because federal courts have

no jurisdiction of it. Neither it nor we will require the plaintiff to sue the County

of Harris instead of the Appraisal District, as would be necessary to obtain the

relief he seeks. It does not matter since 28 U.S.C. § 1381 provides that federal

courts may not restrain the assessment of state taxes. The appellee’s brief

explains why federal courts may not adjudicate the claims of his complaint. He

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 4, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-20520 Document: 00511655440 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2011
No. 11-20520

may bring such a claim in Texas courts, and whether the remedy sought has

merit is for the Texas court to decide.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-20520 Document: 00511655440 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2011
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 4 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 4 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 4 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 4 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 4 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 4 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 4 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 4 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 4 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 4 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 4 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 4 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 4 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 13 of 13
Case 4:21-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 59 Filed 04/26/21 Page 1 of 14
Case 4:21-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 59 Filed 04/26/21 Page 2 of 14
Case 4:21-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 59 Filed 04/26/21 Page 3 of 14
Case 4:21-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 59 Filed 04/26/21 Page 4 of 14
Case 4:21-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 59 Filed 04/26/21 Page 5 of 14
Case 4:21-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 59 Filed 04/26/21 Page 6 of 14
Case 4:21-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 59 Filed 04/26/21 Page 7 of 14
Case 4:21-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 59 Filed 04/26/21 Page 8 of 14
Case 4:21-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 59 Filed 04/26/21 Page 9 of 14
Case 4:21-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 59 Filed 04/26/21 Page 10 of 14
Case 4:21-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 59 Filed 04/26/21 Page 11 of 14
Case 4:21-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 59 Filed 04/26/21 Page 12 of 14
Case 4:21-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 59 Filed 04/26/21 Page 13 of 14
Case 4:21-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 59 Filed 04/26/21 Page 14 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-12 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-12 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### J. Barrie Graham et al., Appellants, v. Board of Supervisors of Erie County, Respondent, and Common Council of the City of Buffalo, Appellant.

Order unanimously modified on the law and facts and in the exercise of our discretion by reversing and striking therefrom the second ordering paragraph, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Special Term lacked the power and authority to restrain the Board of Elections and the Common Council from submitting the issue of the sales tax referendum to the voters on March 28, 1967. This determination was not ancillary to the continued retention of jurisdiction which the court had over reapportionment. Furthermore, even if we had determined that the court had authority to exercise discretion we would hold that such discretion was improvidently exercised. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term directing that referendum on Local Law No. 7 proceed on March 28, 1967 and only on that issue.) Present—Williams, P. J., Goldman, Henry, Del Veeehio and Marsh, JJ. (Order entered March 13, 1967.)
#### Cement Stone and Tile Company *v.*McCalla.

May 16, 1913.

Action for damages. Before Judge Ellis. Fulton superior eourt. July 6, 1913.

*Edgar Latham,*for plaintiff in error. *Scott & Davis,*contra.

Evans, P. J.

The petition stated a cause of action, the evidence authorized the verdict, and the eourt did not abuse its discretion in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-18-00386-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 396th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1451976R

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell

MICHAEL OSHEA WHITE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael Oshea White, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the trial 

court’s alleged denial of his “Motion for Court Records for [Habeas] Corpus 

Proceedings.”1 We sent White a letter expressing our concern that we do not have 

jurisdiction because the trial court has not entered any appealable orders. We 

informed him that unless he filed a response showing grounds for continuing the 

appeal, we would dismiss it. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Although we granted several 

extensions of time for White to respond to our letter, he did not.

In a criminal appeal, we generally have jurisdiction only upon a final judgment 

of conviction. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02; McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 

160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). The trial court has not signed a final 

judgment of conviction or another order from which White may appeal. We therefore 

dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); McKown, 915 

S.W.2d at 161.

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell

Justice

 

1

In this motion, White asked the trial court to permit him to review transcripts 

relating to a conviction from which he was seeking postconviction relief. In 2017, we 

affirmed White’s convictions for two counts of aggravated sexual assault and for one 

count of aggravated assault on a family member. White v. State, No. 02-16-00207-CR, 

2017 WL 2289096, at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 25, 2017, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., 

not designated for publication). We have not received an order denying White’s

motion to review the transcripts.
3

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: February 14, 2019
2409.507-2 Contract clauses.       The Contracting Officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 2452.209-71, Limitation on Future Contracts, in solicitations and contracts for services above the simplified acquisition threshold whenever the Contracting Officer has reason to believe that the nature of the proposed contract requirements may present an organizational conflict of interest as defined at FAR subpart 9.5. The Contracting Officer shall describe in the clause the nature of the potential conflict and the negotiated terms and duration of the limitation. The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 2452.209-72, Organizational Conflicts of Interest, in all solicitations and contracts.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2409.5 - Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest