alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.a


                     RONSON CORPORATION'S NASDAQ COMPLIANCE



Somerset, N.J., August 1, 2007 - Ronson Corporation (NASDAQ Capital Market:
RONC) today announced that on July 30, 2007, it notified the Nasdaq Stock Market
that due to the recent retirement of a director, it does not satisfy Nasdaq's
requirement that a majority of the board of directors be comprised of
independent directors. As a result, the Company received a Nasdaq Staff
Deficiency Letter on July 30, 2007 regarding the fact that the Company is not
now in compliance with the foregoing requirement for continued listing, as is
set forth in Marketplace Rule 4350, and that if this matter is not resolved by
January 16, 2008, therefore, its securities would then be subject to delisting
from The Nasdaq Stock Market. In its notice to the Nasdaq Stock Market on July
30, 2007, the Company indicated that it has determined to take such action by or
before January 15, 2008, so that the Company will be in compliance with the
requirement that a majority of the board of directors be comprised of
independent directors.



This press release contains forward-looking statements that anticipate results
based on management's plans and expectations that are subject to uncertainty.
Forward-looking statements are based on current expectations of future events.
The Company cannot ensure that any forward-looking statement will be accurate,
although the Company believes that it has been reasonable in its expectations
and assumptions. If underlying assumptions prove inaccurate or that unknown
risks or uncertainties materialize, actual results could vary materially from
our projections. Investors should understand that it is not possible to predict
or identify all such factors and should not consider this to be a complete
statement of all potential risks and uncertainties. The Company assumes no
obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of future events
or developments.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Caprius,
Inc. Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2000, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000722567
<NAME>                        CAPRIUS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                 350
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          530
<ALLOWANCES>                                            26
<INVENTORY>                                            284
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         9
<PP&E>                                                 536
<DEPRECIATION>                                         275
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       4,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                1,005
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          2,700
<COMMON>                                               164
<OTHER-SE>                                           3,221
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         4,310
<SALES>                                              3,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     3,399
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     4,231
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       833
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     305
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      1,120
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  1,120
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         1,120
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .08



</TABLE>
#### Clay W. KEITH, Individually and as Director, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Driver’s Licenses, Appellant (Respondent), v. Freddie J. CORBIN, Appellee (Petitioner).

No. DD-417.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 10, 1977.

Rehearing Denied July 7, 1977.

*1224Edwin E. Strickland, Gen. Counsel, Enoch J. Whitney, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for appellant (respondent).

James A. Shook, Ocala, for appellee (petitioner).

MILLS, Judge.

Mr. Corbin’s driver’s license was revoked by the Director, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Driver’s Licenses, and following an administrative hearing the revocation was affirmed by letter of 25 June 1976. On 17 August 1976, 53 days later, Mr. Corbin filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Suggestion for Writ of Prohibition with the trial court seeking writs prohibiting the Director from revoking his license and directing the Director to issue a license to him. The trial court issued both writs. The Director appeals.

The issue before us is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the writs. It did not.

Section 322.31, Florida Statutes (1975), provides:

> “Right of review — The final orders and rulings of the department wherein any person is denied a license, or where such license has been cancelled, suspended or revoked, shall be reviewable in the manner and within the time provided by the Florida appellate rules only by a writ of Certiorari issued by the circuit court in the county wherein such person shall reside, in the manner prescribed by the Florida appellate rules.”

Florida Appellate Rule 4.5 c. (1) provides in pertinent part:

> “Application for writ of certiorari shall be by petition filed in the Court within 30 days from the rendition of the decision, order, judgment or decree sought to be reviewed. . . .”

In the case before us, Corbin not only failed to seek review by petition for writ of certiorari as required by Section 322.31, but if we should treat the petition and suggestion filed by Mr. Corbin as a petition for writ of certiorari, it was not filed within thirty days from entry of the administrative order as required by Fla.App.R. 4.5 c. (1).

The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the writs of prohibition and mandamus. Accordingly, they are quashed.

BOYER, C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Exhibit
      32.1











Written
      Statement of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








The
      undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of The Wilber Corporation (the
      "Company"), hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the date
      hereof:





(a)
            the
                Form 10-Q of the Company for the Quarterly Period Ended March 31,
                2006,
                filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission
                (the
                "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                or 15(d)
                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





(b)
            information
                contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
                the
                financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.








/s/
                Douglas C. GulottyDouglas
                C. GulottyPresident
                and Chief Executive OfficerDate:May
                8, 2006





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to The Wilber Corporation and will be retained
      by The Wilber Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.




30
```

[House Report 111-369]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    111-369

======================================================================

 
   WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON 
                                 RULES

                                _______
                                

  December 9, 2009.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Hastings of Florida, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 962]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 962, by a record vote of 9 to 3, report the 
same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution 
be adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver 
to any resolution reported on the legislative day of December 
10, 2009, providing for further consideration or disposition of 
the bill (H.R. 4173) to provide for financial regulatory 
reform, to protect consumers and investors, to enhance Federal 
understanding of insurance issues, to regulate the over-the-
counter derivatives markets, and for other purposes.

                            COMMITTEE VOTES

    The results of each record vote on an amendment or motion 
to report, together with the names of those voting for and 
against, are printed below:

Rules Committee record vote No. 289

    Date: December 9, 2009.
    Measure: H. Res. 962, waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) 
of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain 
resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.
    Motion by: Mr. McGovern.
    Summary of motion: To report the rule.
    Results: Adopted 9-3.
    Vote by Members: McGovern--Yea; Hastings--Yea; Matsui--Yea; 
Cardoza--Yea; Arcuri--Yea; Perlmutter--Yea; Pingree--Yea; 
Polis--Yea; Dreier--Nay; Diaz-Balart--Nay; Foxx--Nay; 
Slaughter--Yea.

                                  

```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision ***

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEAN PAUL LAUREN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 09-36010

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00001-CSO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Carolyn S. Ostby, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted December 14, 2010*** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Jean Paul Lauren appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in his action against the Commissioner of Social Security alleging improper denial

FILED

JAN 07 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-36010

of his Plan to Achieve Self-Support (“PASS”). We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s order affirming the

Commissioner’s decision. Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.

2005). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. San Jose Christian

Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lauren’s

proposed PASS failed adequately to delineate the part of his income that he

intended to “use or set aside to use for expenses . . . determine[d] to be reasonable

and necessary to fulfill an approved [PASS,]” as was necessary to evaluate his

eligibility for the Supplemental Security Income he sought to obtain. 20 C.F.R.

§ 416.1180 et seq. (setting forth requirements for viable PASS proposals). 

The Commissioner’s motion to file a supplemental brief is granted. 

Lauren’s motion for oral argument is denied.

AFFIRMED.
. . -. 

THF, A~ORNEB! GENERAL 

OF TEx.As 

Dear sir: oplnlal IO. O-937 

Rer IhetAmr a tramfor of oertaln 

fmda f%n the RoeA and Bridge 

Fond to the Ckmral Fund is 

valid. 

Your requeet for an opinion fwu tiia deparlzmt,~ a.s oontdned 

in your l.etterofJune 5,readn M folkem 

"The Cclmoiealoaers~ Court of Kenedy County, harlw 

set the almum levy prescribed by statute of .25# per 

hundred dollar8 raluatlon for the GeneralBund, in au 

em8rgency vhloh vaa not foreeeen at the time the le.rlee 

and aaaeeemente vere mads for the oounty, required the 

alrmof $36oo.oOvithwhl0h topsyaobimagaimtthe 

county. The mnount of numey in the Oeneral hnd vae 

lneuffioient for euch purpose, but there vaa en exaees 

ofmoney in the RoasndBrlddeFund. The amount 

need8dvaS thereupOn,~emferred fra6 the Read and 

Bridge to the hneral~fund and tie c&ah vaa paid. 

*&,,8 qU8etiO,, hae 21oY aCieen (u( to th8 Validity 

of snob transfer. Will you kindly ad+tieme of the 

opialon of your department in the p-ties." 

The above qu8stiDn inrOlV8a the t&tfIf8r Of fWb raised by 

taxation as authortied In Artiole 9, Seotlcm 3, of the Conatltutlog of 

Texae . This constitutional rertrictlon not Only lIn~.ita the emaunt of 

much faxes tilatosnbe levied aa pmrlded tbsreiu,butaleoliaita as 

expenditure of mne. It appeara veil eattbd that oonetitutiOnal fund73 

play not b8 tranef8IT8d iraa one fund to i3tIOti8rl may not be diV82%8d, 

end the Ccmaisaf0n8m~C0urthae no peer to expend for on8 pmpoae tax 

1~x187 raised oetmslbly for another purpoee. Article 1630, Revised Civil 

Statutee, 1925, la not alrlJlioable in moh mse. Cahill T. Yllllmm, 

202 S.Y. 5&J Ault V. Hill Covnty, ~6 S.W. 3591 Sandera T. Looney, 

225 8. If. 280, ll Tex. Jar. 609, Seo. 7a. 
Rcsmrabh Gus L. KomLsklEi, Page 2 (G-937) 

It la, therefore, the oplnlcm of thin depmhent that the 

Cmmln~ionera I Court la not aulhrlzed to treiu8fer moneya fmxa axe 

oowtitutfanal fund hsto maother. SW& trcurefer, If made, would owtltuk a dlvenion of ruoh ftmde and be lnvalld. 

lhmtu the above anmere pmr quertian, we amain 

Your8 very truly, 

NmoRKY aumRALwTRxAs 

By&. J. R. Uns 

Aaeicltalt 

APPRovEDJm 21, l939 

/s/ Gerald 0. Nann 

A-- w-lmAs 

APPmvEDoPlRIoRool4mmRE BY R.V.F., CRAIRhM
No. 54992.

#### D. & A. Sclafani et al. *v.*United States,

protests 159978-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 3.4



                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                             MEDICAL NUTRITION, INC.

                  IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT:

         1.       The name of the corporation is Medical Nutrition, Inc.

         2.       The certificate of incorporation was filed by the department
of state on the 28th day of December 1981.

         3.       The certificate of incorporation of this corporation is hereby
amended to effect the following change:

                  ARTICLE FOURTH is hereby deleted, in full, and the following
substituted in its place and stead:

                  FOURTH: The aggregate number of shares which the corporation
                  shall have authority to issue is ten million (10,000,000)
                  shares without nominal or par value. All or part of said
                  shares may be issued by the Company from time to time, and for
                  such consideration, as may be determined upon and fixed by the
                  Board of Directors, as provided by law. The Board of Directors
                  shall have the power to amend the division of shares into
                  classes and into series within any class or classes, the
                  determination of the relative rights, preferences and
                  limitations of the shares of any class or series, and any or
                  all of such divisions and determinations."

         4.       The amendment to the certificate of incorporation was
authorized at a meeting of shareholders held on February 14, 1986. The number of
shares outstanding at the time of the adoption of this amendment was 4,421,358.
The total number of shares entitled to vote thereon was 4,421,358. The number of
shares voting in favor of such amendment was 4,408,858 with no shares voting
against it and 4,408,858 shares outstanding.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this certificate has been subscribed this
26th day of March, 1987 by the undersigned who affirms that the statements made
herein are true under the penalties of perjury.


                                       MEDICAL NUTRITION, INC.

                                       By: /s/ MYRA GANS
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Myra Gans, Vice President

Dated: March 26, 1987
No. 46557.

#### Protests 63877-K, etc., of Asbury Graphite Mills (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is amorphous graphite the same as that the subject of *Starkey*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 118, C. D. 444) the protests were sustained.
CERTIFICATION

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Corporate Fraud  Accountability Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted, the "Corporate  Accountability  Act"), Lawrence
Wan, Chief  Executive  Officer of OpticNet,  Inc. (the  "Company"),  and Gary D.
Wrench, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the
best of their knowledge:

1.    The Company's  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 29,
      2002,  to which  this  Certification  is  attached  as  Exhibit  99.3 (the
      "Periodic  Report") fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a)
      or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

2.    The information  contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents,  in all
      material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the
eighth day of August, 2002.

                                   /s/  Lawrence Wan
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Lawrence Wan
                                  Chief Executive Officer

                                   /s/  Gary D. Wrench
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Gary D. Wrench
                                  Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 28, 2014

h0421

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2014

148224

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148224

COA: 316637

Wayne CC: 11-009553-FC

GREGORY CHAMP RIVERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 29, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### Michael RIVERS, Petitioner, v. INTEGON GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

No. 98-2898.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 28, 1998.

Diego C. Asencio, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

No response required for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this case, petitioner challenges an order from the circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, affirming the trial court’s denial of fees for the attorney who testified as an expert witness on the issue of attorney’s fees. We find no departure from the essential requirements of law. The circuit court appro*385priately considered *Travieso v. Travieso,*474 So.2d 1184, 1186 (Fla.1985); *United States Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Rosado,*606 So.2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) and *Orlando Regional Medical Ctr., Inc. v. Chmielewski*573 So.2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

STONE, C.J., and GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
No. 39247.

#### Protests 370240-G, etc., of Morris Goldberg’s Sons et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel atomizers, boxes, bottles, and trays chiefly used in the kitchen or household or on the table for utilitarian purposes or hollow ware were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339.
TABLE 5-26. AIRCRAFT RISK CRITERIA OF NATIONAL RANGES*1

Range Mission Essential Other

Eastern Range 1E-6 1E-6

NAWC - Point Mugu 1E-4 to 1E-3 Containment

Pacific Missile Range Facility RSO Discretion Containment

Reagan Test Site 1E-6 1E-7

Wallops Flight Facility 1E-6 1E-6

Western Range 1E-7 1E-7

White Sands Missile Range 1E-6, sched. DR debris;

1E-8 breakup debris

Containment

Standard Criteria Containment Containment

* Risk expressed in terms of 

probability of impact

1E-6 1E-7

 1 The Eglin Air Force Base is not included in this list because it is not used to launch ELV and RLV vehicles, but is 

instead used primarily for military armaments.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2009 -NM-__ 200

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"?

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD signjfic311t?

-AD

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a signi ficant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intnstate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)