alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

                 Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer
          Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Jeffersonville Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies to his knowledge on the date hereof, that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

    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
Jeffersonville Bancorp and will be retained by Jeffersonville Bancorp and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange commission or its staff upon
request.


                                        /s/ Charles E. Burnett

                                        Charles E. Burnett
March 15, 2006                          Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
# AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board.

# ACTION:

Request for comments.

# SUMMARY:

The Surface Transportation Board (Board) seeks comments on whether the Board should approve the application of the National Motor Bus Traffic Association, Inc. (NBTA), for extended approval of its rate bureau agreement.

# DATES:

Opening comments are due March 13, 2000. Reply comments are due March 27, 2000.

# ADDRESSES:

Send an original and 10 copies of comments and replies, referring to “Sec. 5a Application No. 9 (Amendment No. 8),” to: Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565-1600. [TDD for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.]

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

                    In our decision and notice issued today in                     *EC-MAC Motor Carriers Service Association, Inc., et al.,*                     Section 5a Application No. 118 (Sub-No. 2),                     *et al.*                     (                    *EC-MAC*) (which are available on the Board's website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV”), we expressed concern with the way in which motor freight carrier rate bureaus collectively set “benchmark” class rates, from which discount rates may be offered to many, but not all, shippers. We indicated our intent to approve the rate bureau agreements of the motor freight bureaus only if class rates were reduced to market-based levels, and we requested public input on ways in which to achieve our objective.                

                    NBTA has asked to have its agreement approved. It states that, while it does file tariffs on behalf of its member carriers, its members express their rates in dollars and cents, and not as discounts off of collectively-established bureau rates. Thus, it states that the issues over which we expressed concern in the                     *EC-MAC*                     proceeding should not be factors in our consideration of its agreement.                

                    We tend to agree with NBTA that the issues about which we raised concerns in                     *EC-MAC*                     should not be of concern here. Nonetheless, any person who believes that we should initiate further proceedings of the sort that we are pursuing in                     *EC-MAC,*                     or that the agreement should be disapproved or conditioned for other reasons may file comments.                

Decided: February 4, 2000.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Burkes, and Commissioner Clyburn.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary,

[FR Doc. 00-3137 Filed 2-10-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, J. Patrick Kenny, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Drinks Americas
      Holdings, Ltd. 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
      untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
      necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
      which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
      covered by this report.

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
      information included in this report, fairly present in all material
      respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
      the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
      and have:

      a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

      b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
      our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
      to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's
      board of directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):

      a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



Dated as of August 7, 2007                            /s/ J. Patrick Kenny
                                                      -----------------------
                                                      J. Patrick Kenny
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 22 (Friday, February 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 9212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02339]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

(ER-FRL-9031-6)

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 01/23/2017 through 01/27/2017
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make 
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's 
comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20170021, Draft, USAF, MD, Presidential Aircraft 
Recapitalization Program at Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility, 
Comment Period Ends: 03/20/2017, Contact: Jean Reynolds 210-925-4534.

EIS No. 20170022, Final, RUS, PR, Arecibo Waste-to-Energy and Resource 
Recovery Project, Review Period Ends: 03/06/2017, Contact: Steven 
Polacek 202-205-9805.

    Dated: January 31, 2017.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2017-02339 Filed 2-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       7,600,910
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         998,010
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             5,725,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 14,518,009
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      15,607,030
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    114,717,535
<ALLOWANCE>                                (1,068,038)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             162,564,761
<DEPOSITS>                                 147,909,971
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            595,195
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,767,614
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,850,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             162,564,761
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,860,426
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              919,827
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               180,569
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,960,822
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,668,779
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,707,753
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,253,069
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  135,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,616,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                812,345
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     483,901
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   483,901
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.53
<LOANS-NON>                                     69,663
<LOANS-PAST>                                   150,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               982,198
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   49,610
<RECOVERIES>                                       450
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,068,038
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,068,038
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

The Board of Directors
Ross Systems, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (File 
Nos. 33-42036, 33-48226, 33-56584, 33-56584, 33-72168, and 33-89128) on Form 
S-8, and the registration statements (File Nos. 33-89504 and 333-19619) on 
Form S-3, of Ross Systems, Inc. of our report dated August 18, 1995, except 
as to Note 14, which is as of September 18, 1996, relating to the 
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows 
for the year ended June 30, 1995 of Ross Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries, and 
the related schedule, which report appears in the June 30, 1997, annual 
report on Form 10-K of Ross Systems, Inc.

                                              KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

San Jose, California
September 26, 1997
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1340 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1340

 To provide for the admission to the United States of certain Tibetans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2009

  Mr. George Miller of California (for himself and Mr. Sensenbrenner) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the admission to the United States of certain Tibetans.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tibetan Refugee Assistance Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. TRANSITION FOR DISPLACED TIBETANS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the numerical limitations 
specified in sections 201 and 202 of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 and 1152), there shall be made available to 
qualified displaced Tibetans described in subsection (b) of this 
section 3,000 immigrant visas in the 3-fiscal-year period beginning 
with fiscal year 2010.
    (b) Qualified Displaced Tibetan Described.--
            (1) In general.--An individual is a qualified displaced 
        Tibetan if such individual is an individual who--
                    (A) is a native of Tibet; and
                    (B) since before the date of the enactment of this 
                Act, has been continuously residing in India or Nepal.
            (2) Native of tibet described.--For purposes of 
        subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), an individual shall be 
        considered to be a native of Tibet if such individual was born 
        in Tibet or is the son, daughter, grandson, or granddaughter of 
        an individual born in Tibet.
    (c) Distribution of Visa Numbers.--The Secretary of State shall 
ensure that immigrant visas provided under subsection (a) are made 
available to qualified displaced Tibetans described in subsection (b) 
(or described in subsection (d) as the spouse or child of such a 
qualified displaced Tibetan) in an equitable manner, giving preference 
to those qualified displaced Tibetans who are not resettled in India or 
Nepal or who are most likely to be resettled successfully in the United 
States.
    (d) Derivative Status for Spouses and Children.--A spouse or child 
(as defined in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 
101(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1))) 
shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the 
immediate issuance of a visa under this section, be entitled to the 
same status, and the same order of consideration, provided under this 
section, if accompanying, or following to join, the spouse or parent of 
such spouse or child.
                                 <all>
```
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2012 - 0530 Directorate ID : 2011 - SW - 075 - AD Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron Model 412, 412EP, and 412CF Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 83 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : These actions in this AD are intended to detect a crack in the collective lever, which could lead to failure of the collective lever and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $12,883 (to repl ace a collective lever) Labor per Helicopter ( 1 x $ 8 5 /work - hour for the inspection) (10 work - hours for the replacement) $ 85 $850 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $85 for the inspection (per inspection cycle) $ 13,733 for the replacement Total US Fleet Cost $ 7,055 for the inspection (per inspection cycle) Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Martin Crane
#### Paul STEVENS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 4578.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Nov. 16, 1939.

Claude L. Dawson, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Joe V. Gibson, U. S. Atty., of King-wood, W. Va., Wayne T. Brooks, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Clarksburg, W. Va., and Jacob S. Hyer, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Elkins, W. Va., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Case docketed and appeal dismissed on motion of appellee. Order filed.
#### PEACHTREE OIL CO. et al. v. SHORTER.

No. 5315.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

May 11, 1939.

Tom L. Beauchamp and Ralph C. Street, both of Tyler, for appellants.

Ed Yarbrough, of Henderson, for ap-pellee.

JOHNSON, Chief Justice.

This suit was filed by Neal Shorter against Peachtree Oil Company, Franks-ton Oil Company, and the Bagdad Production Company, private corporations, seeking (1) to set aside a release executed by plaintiff acquitting ■ defendants of liability for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while working for defendants; and (2) to recover damages' for such injuries, alleged to have been sustained as the result of negligence on the part of defendants. Trial to a jury upon special issues resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. From an order overruling their motion for new trial defendants have appealed.

The fraud alleged as grounds for setting aside said release was, in substance, that appellants had represented, promised and agreed that if appellee would sign the re-’ lease appellants would give him employment for life; that appellee believed and relied upon same, and was thereby induced to execute the release; that such representation, promise and agreement of appellants was made with no intention of being performed, and that appellee was discharged shortly after signing the release. In substance, the jury found the alleged facts to be. true, except that no issue was submitted to the jury inquiring as to whether appellants at the time of making said promise of future employment did so with the intention of not performing same; appellants’ first and second assignments complain of failure to submit such an issue to the jury. The contention is sustained.

“It is the settled law of this state that if the agent of the companies, as an inducement to procure the execution of the release, promised -the plaintiff, and induced him to believe, that if he would execute the release he would get employment from the company as a switchman, and if such promise was not made in good faith, that is to say, if said claim agent had no intention of giving him such employment, then the release was voidable and subject to be set aside for fraud.” Texas & N. O. Ry. Co. v. Thompson, Tex.Com.App., 12 S.W.2d 963, 964.

The bad faith — intention at the time it was made not to perform the promise of future employment — is essential to consti*392tute fraud. 20 T.J. 31, Sec. 16. Such intention is a matter peculiarly within the province of the jury, to he determined by them from all the facts and circumstances as any other fact questioned. Tatum v. Orange & N. W. Ry. Co., Tex.Com.App., 245 S.W. 231; Chicago, T. & M. C. Ry. Co. v. Titterington, 84 Tex. 218, 19 S.W. 472, 31 Am.St.Rep. 39.

Error is assigned with respect to certain statements made by the attorney for ap-pellee in his closing argument to the jury. The argument complained of was improper, and we assume that it will not occur on another trial.

We have reviewed the remaining assignments of error and the propositions presented by appellants and they are respectfully overruled.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
#### J. C. GRAHAM, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 16072.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 31, 1933.

Hughes & Monroe, of Dallas, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Robbery with firearms is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the' penitentiary for five years.

The trial was had before the court upon a plea of guilty. The proceedings appear regular. The record is before us without statement of facts and bills of exception. No error has been perceived.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 11.1 Statement Re: Computation of Net Loss Per Share and Pro Forma Net
                           Loss Per Share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Three Months                       Nine Months
                                                   Ended September 30,                Ended September 30,
                                             -----------------------------        --------------------------
                                                 1997               1996               1997          1996
                                             -----------        ----------        ------------  ------------
<S>                                         <C>               <C>                 <C>              <C>
Weighted average common shares
    outstanding                               10,515,518        10,216,146          10,475,644      4,447,440

Effect of convertible preferred stock
    converted at date of issuance                      -                 -                   -      4,452,718

 Effect of common equivalent shares issued
    by the Company during the twelve
    month period immediately preceding the
    Company's initial public offering in
    June 1996, as if they were outstanding
    for all periods presented prior to
    June 30, 1996 (using the treasury stock            -                 -                   -         63,212
    method)
                                            ------------      ------------        ------------   ------------

Shares used in computing net loss per
    share and pro forma net loss per          10,515,518        10,216,146          10,475,644      8,963,370
    share

Net loss                                    $ (1,128,695)     $ (3,059,131)       $ (7,193,464)  $ (8,510,324)

Net loss per share and pro forma net
    loss per share                          $      (0.11)     $      (0.30)       $      (0.69)   $      (0.95)
</TABLE>


                                    Page 15