alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONTACT:
                                               Marianne V. Pastor
                                               (703) 335-7800
                                          FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Williams Industries Inc. Announces
----------------------------------
Fiscal 2006 Results;
-------------------
Marked Improvement Over Prior Year
----------------------------------

     Manassas, VA. --- October 19, 2006 --- Williams Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ
- WMSI) today announced its results for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2006.
For Fiscal 2006, the company had revenues of $42,118,000 with a profit of
$93,000 or $0.03 per share.   This compares to revenue of $48,572,000 and a
loss of $11,374,000 or $3.12 per share for the prior year.  For the fourth
quarter of the fiscal year, the company had revenue of $8,099,000 with a
profit of $13,000 or $0.01 per share.  Fiscal 2006 profitability is directly
attributable to gains recognized on the sale of real estate.   However, the
company's brighter future prospects are attributed to a combination of
factors, including: the price of steel has stabilized, allowing the company
to retain some profit in its fixed-price contracts; and the company has
completed work on several large unprofitable jobs.

     Frank E. Williams, III, President and CEO of Williams Industries, said
that while he was pleased with the improvements, there is still substantial
work to be done before the company achieves its potential.  "The Board of
Directors and management are in the process of evaluating all of the
company's assets to make sure that we are maximizing value for the long-term
benefit of the corporation and its shareholders," Williams said.

     Interested parties are encouraged to read the company's Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) filings in order to get specific information.   To
access these filings, go to www.sec.gov.  Once the SEC site has been
accessed, click on "Filings and Forms (EDGAR)".   At the "Search for Company
Filings" prompt, click on "Companies and Other Filers" and enter the
company's ticker symbol "WMSI".   The company will also send a copy of the
10-K filing to anyone who requests it.

     Williams Industries, Inc. is the largest publicly owned specialty
construction company in the Mid-Atlantic region.  Its subsidiaries provide a
wide range of quality, cost competitive services and products for the
industrial, commercial and institutional construction markets.  The
construction and manufacturing services include: steel and precast concrete
erection; miscellaneous metals installation; the fabrication of welded steel
plate girders; rolled steel beams, and light structural and other metal
products; the construction, repair and rehabilitation of bridges; and crane
rental, heavy and specialized hauling and rigging.

     The company's web site is currently being restructured, so for
additional information, please call Marianne Pastor at the investor
relation's office at (703) 335-7800.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       53,229
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             53,229
<PP&E>                                       10,385

<DEPRECIATION>                                  591
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               71,171
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        45,991
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                    763,303
<OTHER-SE>                                 (834,123)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 71,171
<SALES>                                       1,512
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              1,512
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                51,695
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            5,760
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (50,183)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (50,183)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                (50,183)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
        

</TABLE>
SATURNA INVESTMENT TRUST


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY
                               -----------------


The undersigned  Trustees of Saturna Investment Trust, a Massachusetts  Business
Trust  organized  under the laws of the State of  Washington,  proposing to file
with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended,  one or more amendments to the Registration  Statement on Form N-1A and
related  Amendments  to the  Registration  Statement  of  the  Trust  under  the
Investment Company Act of 1940 ("Amendments") do hereby separately and severally
appoint and constitute Nicholas F. Kaiser, whose signature appears below:

                             /s/ Nicholas F. Kaiser
                       ---------------------------------
                               NICHOLAS F. KAISER

his true and lawful attorney for him and in his name, place and stead to sign in
the  capacity  of a  Trustee  of the  Trust  such  Amendments  and  any  and all
additional  amendments thereto,  and to file such amendments and all instruments
necessary or  incidental  thereto with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission
under such 1933 and 1940 Acts.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undersigned  has  hereunto set his hand and seal this
20thday of March, 1998.
 ---         -----

/s/        Gary  A.  Goldfogel                                /s/ John E. Love
------------------------------                                ----------------
Gary  A.  Goldfogel                                               John E. Love

/s/  John  S.  Moore                                     /s/ A. Herbert ERshig
--------------------                                     ---------------------
John  S.  Moore                                              A. Herbert Ershig
# CFOI involving forklift private
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Winzel Dallas JACOBS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7393.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 28, 2012.

Decided: Jan. 7, 2013.

Winzel Dallas Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Winzel Dallas Jacobs appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and reducing his sentence to seventy-two months’ imprisonment. Although the court imposed a sentence below the original ninety-six month term, it did not reduce Jacobs’ sentence to the full extent he requested and instead imposed a sentence above the amended Guidelines range of sixty-months’ imprisonment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.* Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*

*

 Although the district court misstated Jacobs’ amended offense level, the court correctly determined that Jacobs' amended Guidelines range was sixty months’ imprisonment. We find no abuse in the district court’s exercise of its discretion to sentence Jacobs to a sentence above the amended Guidelines range. *Cf. United States v. Munn,*595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir.2010) (applying abuse of discretion standard to review of order granting or denying a § 3582(c)(2) order).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       7,928,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,438,040
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,063,028
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,233,659
<PP&E>                                   1,012,740,161
<DEPRECIATION>                             164,312,899
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             961,546,902
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       91,274,099
<BONDS>                                    380,258,943
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    49,537,622
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,101,321
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               961,546,902
<SALES>                                    323,134,057
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           323,134,057
<CGS>                                       17,007,078
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              257,654,838
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            40,461,491
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          26,474,222
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                436,248
<INCOME-TAX>                                   926,304
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                    2,968,637
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,458,693)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (19.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (19.39)


</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1845

_____________________________
E VAN A NTOINE S MITH , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Steven B. Whittington , Judge

. May 24, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , K ELSEY , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant ; Evan Antoine Smith,
pro se , Ap pellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
CAPITAL INCOME BUILDER, INC.
            333 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, California  90071
                            Telephone  (213)486-9200

                                             January 3, 2003

Document Control
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

 Re: Capital Income Builder, Inc.
     File Nos.  811-5085
                33-12967

Ladies/Gentlemen:

 Pursuant to Rule 497(j), I hereby certify that no changes have been made
to the form of prospectus and Statement of Additional Information since the
electronic filing on 12/26/02 of Registrant's Post-Effective Amendment No. 21
under the Securities Act of 1933 and Amendment No. 23 under the Investment
Company Act of 1940.

                                             Sincerely,
                                             /s/ Vincent P. Corti
                                             Vincent P. Corti
                                             Secretary

Attachments

cc:   Linda Stirling
     (Division of Investment Management)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>               
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998    
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998  
<CASH>                                      16,290,419    
<SECURITIES>                                         0     
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,393,347      
<ALLOWANCES>                                    59,792        
<INVENTORY>                                  2,117,859  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,626,340  
<PP&E>                                      10,241,717 
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,006,447   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,861,610   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,481,174 
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                        85,239 
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,947,659
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,861,610
<SALES>                                      4,224,147 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,929,115
<CGS>                                        3,052,581
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,608,350
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,007,927   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             114,631
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                326,048
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            311,048
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0  
<NET-INCOME>                                   311,048
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
CERTIFICATION
I, Mary L. Forté, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Zale Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financialinformation included in this report fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.     Date: October 12, 2004 By: /s/ Mary L. Forté       Mary L. Forté   President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer,
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 340 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 99
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 340

                          [Report No. 108-238]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                July 25 (legislative day, July 24), 2003

    Ms. Pryce, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on the legislative day of July 25, 2003, providing 
for consideration or disposition of the bill (H.R. 2861) making 
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

                                                  House Calendar No. 99

108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 340

                          [Report No. 108-238]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                July 25 (legislative day, July 24), 2003

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 28, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00666-CR

ALVIN CHARLES DUNCAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 419955

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from the denial of appellant's motion for judgment 

nunc pro tunc. We dismiss the appeal.

Generally, an appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a 

criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction. Workman v. 

State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 

160, 161 (Tex. App. -- Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). The exceptions include: (1) certain 

appeals while on deferred adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 
2

624, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to reduce bond, 

Tex. R. App. P. 31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161; and (3) certain appeals from the 

denial of habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App. -- Dallas 

1998, no pet.); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161.

The denial of a motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment is not an appealable order. 

See Sanchez v. State, 112 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Tex. App. -- Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.); 

Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735, 735 (Tex. App. -- Waco 2002, pet dism'd.) Because this 

appeal does not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that appeal may be taken 

only from a final judgment of conviction, we have no jurisdiction. See Abbot v State, 271 

S.W. 3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Christopher, and Jamison.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
#### Ronald Drake Jr., Appellant, v John Bates, as Sheriff of Schoharie County, et al., Respondents.

[853 NYS2d 733]

Rose, J.

Plaintiff commenced this negligence action to recover alleged damages sustained while he was incarcerated at the Schoharie County Jail. After service of a summons with notice, defendants served a notice of appearance and demand for complaint on October 17, 2005. After plaintiff failed to serve a complaint, defendants moved on October 18, 2006 for dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b). Supreme Court granted the motion and plaintiff appeals.

To successfully oppose a motion to dismiss for failing to timely serve a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), plaintiff must show a reasonable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action *(see Norrish v Pacini,*29 AD3d 1063, 1063 [2006]; *Amodeo v Gellert & Quartararo, P.C.,*26 AD3d 705, 706 [2006]). Affording Supreme Court considerable discretion in evaluating plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss *(see Brown v Hannaford Bros. Co.,*27 AD3d 815, 816 [2006]; *Amodeo v Gellert & Quartararo, P.C.,*26 AD3d at 706), we find no abuse of discretion in the determination that the excuse for failing to file a complaint—namely that his attorney could not discuss the matter with plaintiff during the one-year delay due to plaintiff being reincarcerated in another county—was unreasonable. Furthermore, as plaintiff did not submit an affidavit or a verified pleading containing evidentiary facts attested by someone with personal knowledge of those facts in opposition to the mo*1099tion to dismiss, plaintiff failed to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action *(see Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers &*Wells, 64 NY2d 904, 905 [1985]; *Amodeo v Gellert & Quartararo, P.C.,*26 AD3d at 706). Finally, plaintiff cannot avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of his retained counsel *(see Link v Wabash R. Co.,*370 US 626, 633-634 [1962]; *Department of Social Servs. v Trustum C.D.,*97 AD2d 831, 831 [1983], *lv denied*61 NY2d 605 [1984]), and no right to the effective assistance of counsel is implicated here *(see Matter of Chase,*44 AD3d 1180, 1182 [2007]; *Xiaokang Xu v Xiaoling Shirley He,*24 AD3d 862, 864 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 710 [2006]; *Olmstead v Federated Dept. Stores,*208 AD2d 979, 982 [1994], *lv denied*85 NY2d 811 [1995]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
#### Vickie Lynn MARSHALL, petitioner, v. E. Pierce MARSHALL.

No. 04-1544.

Jan. 23, 2006.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae*and for divided argument granted.