alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the annual report of Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended March 31, 2012 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gregory L. Paige, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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






/s/Gregory L. PaigeGregory L. Paige

Chief Executive Officer
 May 21, 2012
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      10,618,939
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 99,488,673
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       4,044,291
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,224,181
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             117,968,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     57,493,022
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       462,553
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,593,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               117,968,309
<SALES>                                     49,431,164
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            52,082,605
<CGS>                                       44,887,626
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               45,050,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,872,438
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,230
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,880,466)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,880,466)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,880,466)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.84)
<FN>
Company reports on a non-classified balance sheet.
</FN>


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-30098

Summary Calendar

_____________________

EVARISTUS MACKEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MIKE GILLIAM, Warden, Et Al.,

Defendants,

MIKE GILLIAM, Warden,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(93-CV-1535)

_________________________________________________________________

January 10, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Evaristus Mackey, Louisiana inmate # 317335, appeals from a

judgment for the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights

action, in which he claimed that the defendants violated his due

process rights by failing to give him breaks from isolated

confinement and that the prison’s policy of removing bedding from
- 2 -

his cell during nonsleeping hours violated the Eighth Amendment’s

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. We AFFIRM the

judgment for essentially the reasons stated by the district court.

Mackey v. Gilliam, No. 93-CV-1535 (W.D. La. Nov. 9, 1994, and Jan.

18, 1996) (unpublished).

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32





Certification of Principal Executive and Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Coyote Resources, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Guy Martin, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 has been provided to Coyote Resources, Inc., and will be retained by Coyote Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/ Guy MartinGuy MartinPrincipal Executive Officer, Principal Financial OfficerApril 16, 2013











1
**Exhibit 14.1**

 

**CODE OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SOX 406**

 

Inmy role as the Chief Executive Officer of Samsonite Corporation and/or itsdirect and indirect subsidiaries (“Company”), I recognize that I hold animportant and elevated role in corporate governance. Accordingly, this Code ofEthical Conduct for the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to SOX 406 (“Code”)provides principles to which I am expected to adhere and advocate.

 

Icertify that I adhere to and advocate the following principles andresponsibilities governing my professional and ethical conduct in my positionwith the Company. To the best of my knowledge and ability:

 

1.                                       Iact with honesty and integrity, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts ofinterest in personal and professional relationships.

 

2.                                       Iprovide information that is accurate, complete, objective, relevant, timely andunderstandable.

 

3.                                       Icomply with rules and regulations of federal, state, provincial and localgovernments, and other appropriate private and public regulatory agencies.

 

4.                                       Iact in good faith, responsibly, with due care, competence and diligence,without misrepresenting material facts or allowing my independent judgment tobe subordinated.

 

5.                                       Irespect the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of my workexcept where authorized or otherwise legally obligated to disclose. Confidentialinformation acquired in the course of my work is not used for personaladvantage.

 

6.                                       Imaintain skills important and relevant to my position within the Company.

 

7.                                       Iproactively promote ethical behavior as a responsible partner among peers in mywork environment and community.

 

8.                                       Iachieve responsible use of and control over all assets and resources employedor entrusted to me.

 

9.                                       Iwill report known or suspected violations of this Code to the Audit Committee.

 

10.                                 Iwill be accountable for adhering to this Code.

 

 
| Signature: |   |   |   |   |
|------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|       |   |   |   |
| Printed    |   |   |   |
| Name:      |   |   |   |   |
|       |   |   |   |
| Title:     |   |   |   |   |
|       |   |   |   |
| Date:      |   |   |   |   |
|            |        |        |        |        |  |  |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1998
<CASH>                                       1,084,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               42,827,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 5,400,000
<INVENTORY>                                 69,362,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           125,253,000
<PP&E>                                      69,547,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              33,090,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             171,868,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       57,213,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       181,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 100,302,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               171,868,000
<SALES>                                    315,869,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           315,869,000
<CGS>                                      194,900,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               91,129,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                91,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             285,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             36,372,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                14,686,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         21,686,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                21,686,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50264

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE JAQUEZ PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-2720-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Jaquez Perez (Jaquez) appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed

by the district court following his conviction for illegal reentry. He argues only

that this sentence, which falls at the bottom of the applicable guidelines range,

is substantively unreasonable.

In Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), the Supreme Court

established a bifurcated process for reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence. 

United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). This

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 14, 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: 11-50264 Document: 00511695465 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2011
No. 11-50264

court must determine whether the district court committed any procedural

errors. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If the district court’s decision is procedurally sound,

this court will “consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed

under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. Jaquez concedes, however, that he

failed to object to the sentence following its imposition such that plain error

review is appropriate. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th

Cir. 2007). 

We have rejected Jaquez’s argument that the use of a conviction both for

determining a defendant’s offense level as well as his criminal history score

renders a sentence unreasonable. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528,

529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). We likewise have rejected Jaquez’s contention that a

guidelines sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is unreasonable because illegal

reentry is a mere trespass offense. See United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d

681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). Finally, we are unpersuaded by Jaquez’s argument

that the sentence imposed is unreasonable because it fails to give sufficient

weight to the facts that he was culturally assimilated in the United States and

that he returned to the United States to visit his family. See United States v.

Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). He fails to show plain

error. See Peltier, 505 F.3d at 391-92.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-50264 Document: 00511695465 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2011
#### Lester Ray Tucker v. State.

No. 24964.

December 6, 1950.

*305
      *Vincent W. Harris,*Dallas, for appellant.

*Will R. Wilson, Jr.,*Criminal District Attorney, *Charles S. Potts,*Assistant District Attorney, Dallas, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The primary offense charged is the non-capital felony of robbery by assault, together with an allegation of a prior conviction for burglary. The punishment is assessed at life imprisonment in the penitentiary, under the mandate of Art. 62, P. C.

The indictment, in all essentials, is the same as that set forth and discussed in the case of Farris v. State, No. 24, 902, (page 261 of this volume), 233 S. W. 2d 856. Appellant here registers the same objections to the indictment as were there urged — i.e., that the allegation that the former conviction was for the offense of burglary is not sufficient to invoke the provisions of Art. 62, P. C.

The holding in the Farris case, supra, that the indictment was sufficient controls here.

There is no need to again set forth the reasons upon which the conclusion in the Farris case, supra, was reached. In the instant case, we adhere thereto.

The facts support the conviction.

*306No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
#### STATE ex rel. HANNA v. LEE.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B.

June 8, 1936.

Rehearing Denied July 10, 1936.

H. H. Wells, B. K. Roberts, and William K. Whitfield, all of Tallahassee, for relator.

Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and H. E. Carter and J. V. Keen, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.

*221PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on motion for peremptory writ of mandamus, the return notwithstanding, in a case wherein the alternative writ commands J. M. Lee, as comptroller of the state of Florida, “to forthwith provide for the collection from all applicants all persons who as owners display any coin-operated device as defined in the law to the public to be played .or operated by the public an occupational tax of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars to the State; Seventy-Five dollars to the County and Seventy-five dollars to the City or incorporated town and in addition thereto an occupational tax on each automatic vendor for the State of Thirty Dollars; County Fifteen Dollars and City or incorporated town Fifteen Dollars and that in default of compliance herewith, to show cause at such time as may be named by this Court, why the alternative writ of mandamus should not be made peremptory, and issue such other and further orders as the Court may find necessary.”

It is not necessary to consider the answer and return because it is elementary that mandamus will not lie to compel action upon the part of a public officer when it is apparent that the relator has no direct interest in the action sought to be coerced and that no benefit could accrue to him from its performance. To authorize the relief, it must clearly appear that there is a specific ministerial duty in the performance of which the applicant for relief is directly interested. The writ will not be granted merely for the purpose of defining the powers and duties of' a public officer independent of any direct personal interest upon the part of him who seeks the relief. Pennock v. State, 61 Fla. 383, 54 So. 1004; State v. Jordan, 105 Fla. 322, 140 So. 908.

The relator has failed to show that he has any interest which will constitute a basis for the relief sought.

Motion for peremptory writ is denied.

The alternative writ of mandamus is quashed.

So ordered.

ELLIS, -P. J., and TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and BROWN and DAVIS, JJ., concur in the opinion and judgment.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Oreckinto, Appellant.

[678 NYS2d 521]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered May 20, 1996, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, possession of burglar’s tools, and unlawful possession of a radio device, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant argues that reversible error took place due to the prosecutor’s comments during summation. Because the defendant’s objections were either too general or the defendant did not seek further curative instructions or a mistrial after the court sustained his objections, these claims of error are not preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Heide,*84 NY2d 943, 944; *People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818, 819; *People v Persaud,*237 AD2d 538). In any event, the prosecutor’s statements were fair comment upon the evidence and the legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom and fairly responded to the defense counsel’s summation *(see, People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105, 109; *People v Scotti,*220 AD2d 543; *People v Shepherd,*176 AD2d 369, 370). Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.
#### Charlotte M. Wilson, Respondent, v. William P. W. Haff, Appellant.

Judgments of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 11.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of IOWA (FEMA-1763-DR), dated 05/27/2008.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding.                    

*Incident Period:*                         05/25/2008 and continuing.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         08/12/2008.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         09/29/2008.                    

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         02/27/2009.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

M. Mitravich, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of IOWA, dated 05/27/2008, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: 

*Primary Counties:*                     (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Audubon, Winnebago, Adair Cass, Grundy, Guthrie Henry.                

*Contiguous Counties: (Economic Injury Loans Only):*                     All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.                

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008). 

James E. Rivera,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster, Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-19235 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 19, 2017

NO. 03-16-00248-CV

Jose A. Soliz, Appellant

v.

Home Depot, USA, Inc., Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED—OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the district court on March 9, 2016. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the judgment. The appellant shall pay all costs 

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
#### Strode *versus*Commonwealth. Clymer *versus*Commonwealth.

1. The estate of p, decedent, composed of United States securities, passing collaterally, is liable to collateral inheritance tax.

2. Such tax is not on a specific article, but on the *estate*of the decedent.

3. The acceptance by distributees of specific articles without conversion, in payment of their shares, does not relieve them from collateral inheritance tax.

4. Theoretically, the balance on an administration account is cash.

Both the above eases, involving the question whether United States securities belonging to estates which passed collaterally, were liable to the collateral inheritance tax, were considered and decided together.