alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Sealy Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), David J. McIlquham, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James B. Hirshorn, Senior Executive Vice President, Finance, Operations, Research and
Development of the Company, each certify, 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 results of operations of the Company.

July 12,
2006

| |  | /s/DAVID J. MCILQUHAMDavid J. McIlquham
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)                                      
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/JAMES B. HIRSHORNJames B. Hirshorn
Senior Executive Vice President, Finance,
Operations, Research & Development
(Principal Financial Officer)

---



QuickLinks
David John VEDROS v. Kelli Soileau VEDROS

NO. 2018-C-0004

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 23, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
#### Samuel & Weininger, Appellant, v Belovin & Franzblau et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[772 NYS2d 600]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated March 24, 2003, which denied its motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“A party seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar more than one year after it has been marked off, and after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, must establish a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecuting the action, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendants” *(Kalyuskin v Rudisel,*306 AD2d 246, 247 [2003]; *see Braun v Safdie, 2*AD3d 473 [2003]; *Basetti v Nour,*287 AD2d 126, 131 [2001]). The plaintiff submitted an attorney’s affirmation in an effort to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for the delay. Because the attorney is also an associate of the plaintiff law firm which is a party to the action, the submission of an affirmation instead of an affidavit was improper *(see*CPLR 2106; *Slavenburg Corp. v Opus Apparel,*53 NY2d 799, 801 [1981]; *Pisacreta v Minniti,*265 AD2d 540 [1999]; *Board of Mgrs. of Ocean Terrace Towne House Condominium v Lent,*148 AD2d 408, 409 [1989]). In any event, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had a meritorious cause of action *(see Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co.,*73 NY2d 454, 458 [1989]; *Ocasio v Schwertz,*284 AD2d 443 [2001]) or a reasonable excuse for the delay *(see Prado v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens,*237 AD2d 341 [1997]) Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Saul Castillo GUTIERREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5622

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Romesh KEVADIA and Vilas Kevadia, Appellants, v. STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II, INC., Bear Sterns Arm Trust, Mortgage Pass-through Certificates, Series 2006-2, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, et al. Appellees.

Case No. 5D16-3686

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 5 July 2005

in Case T-387/02 Dorte Schmidt-Brown v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Officials - Action for annulment - Accusations against an official - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Rejection of request for financial assistance)

(2005/C 217/78)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-387/02: Dorte Schmidt-Brown, former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Wellen (Germany), represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 26 April 2002 rejecting the applicant's request seeking financial assistance from the Commission in an action for defamation brought by the applicant against a company before the High Court of Justice (England & Wales) — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, I. Labucka and V. Trstenjak, Judges; I. Natsinas, Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 July 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003

----
| /s/      GRUBER & COMPANY, LLC  GRUBER      & COMPANY, LLCCERTIFIED      PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS  Lake      Saint Louis, MO |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date  December      9, 2009                                                                                                              |   |
|                                                                                                                                               |   |
|                                                                                                                                               |   |

----

| /s/      GRUBER & COMPANY, LLC  GRUBER      & COMPANY, LLCCERTIFIED      PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS  Lake      Saint Louis, MO |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date  December      9, 2009                                                                                                              |   |
|                                                                                                                                               |   |
|                                                                                                                                               |   |

----
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, James E. Hogue, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Wiltex A, Inc.
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport.
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financialinformation included in the quarterly report fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in the quarterly report.
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant, and we have:
     a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, if any, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;
     b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of thisquarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”), and
     c. Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluationas of the Evaluation Date;
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the AuditCommittee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
     a. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrols which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for theregistrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
     b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls;and
6. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in thisquarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.         By:       /s/ JAMES E. HOGUE    James E. Hogue    Chairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)   
Date: September 8, 2004
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-64,959]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 22, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Emerson Network Power—Embedded Computing Division, a subsidiary of Emerson Electric, Marlborough, Massachusetts.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Therefore, the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of March, 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E9-7130 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Hf/

Required by Executive Order 12866 for

"Significant Regulatory Actions"

: -1 Reviews Alternative Approaches to

Regulation Being Considered

Compares Energy Savings and

Economic Impacts of Alternative

Approaches

:3:

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21HH

gul t ry 1m III ct I I 

Required by Executive Order 12866 for 

"Significant Regulatory Actions" 

Reviews Alternative Approaches to 

Regulation Being Considered 

Compares Energy Savings and 

Economic Impacts of Alternative 

Approaches 
I\T Spreadsheet will be used

Energy savings and PJPV for each

alternative

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21HH

ul t ry Impact nalysis, nt'd 

NES Spreadsheet will be used 

Energy savings and NPV for each 

alternative 
No-Action

Consumer Tax

Credits

Manufacturer Tax

Credits

Consumer Rebates

Prescriptive

Standards

Voluntary

Standards

Enhanced Labeling

and Consumer

Education

Performance

Standards

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21HH

It rn tive 

II No-Action 

II Consu:mer Tax 

Credits 

II Manufacturer Tax 

Credits 

II Consu:mer Rebates 

II Prescriptive 

Standards 

x mine - 1 

Voluntary 

Standards 

II Enhanced Labeling 

and Consu:mer 

Education 

II Perfor:mance 

Standards 
No New Regulatory

Action

* Consumer Tax

Credits

* Manufacturer Tax

Credit

<<^ i Rebates

Voluntary Energy

Efficiency Targets

Mass Government

Purchases

Performance

Standards

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21HH

It rn ti es 

• No New Regulatory 

Action 

• Consull1er Tax 

Credits 

• Manufacturer Tax 

Credit 

• Rebates 

min .. 1 

III Voluntary Energy 

Efficiency Targets 

Mass Governll1ent 

Purchases 

Perforlllance 

Standards
----

----

I Informācija

Komisija

----

Euro maiņas kurss (1)

2005. gada 18. augusts

(2005/C 203/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Datu avots: atsauces maiņas kursu publicējusi ECB.

----

----

Iebildumu necelšana pret paziņoto koncentrāciju

(Lieta Nr. COMP/M.3870 — Carlyle/Otor)

(2005/C 203/02)

(Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ)

2005. gada 9. augustā Komisija nolēma necelt iebildumus pret augstāk paziņoto koncentrāciju un paziņo, ka tā ir saderīga ar kopējo tirgu. Šis lēmums ir balstīts uz Padomes Regulas (EK) Nr. 139/2004 6. panta 1. punkta b) apakšpunktu. Lēmuma pilns teksts ir pieejams vienīgi franču un tiks publicēts pēc tam, kad tiks noskaidrots, vai tas ietver jelkādus komercnoslēpumus. Tas būs pieejams:

----

----

Iebildumu necelšana pret paziņoto koncentrāciju

(Lieta Nr. COMP/M.3822 — Stora Enso/Schneidersöhne Papier)

(2005/C 203/03)

(Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ)

2005. gada 25. jūlijā Komisija nolēma necelt iebildumus pret augstāk paziņoto koncentrāciju un paziņo, ka tā ir saderīga ar kopējo tirgu. Šis lēmums ir balstīts uz Padomes Regulas (EK) Nr. 139/2004 6. panta 1. punkta b) apakšpunktu. Lēmuma pilns teksts ir pieejams vienīgi angļu un tiks publicēts pēc tam, kad tiks noskaidrots, vai tas ietver jelkādus komercnoslēpumus. Tas būs pieejams:

----

----

Iebildumu necelšana pret paziņoto koncentrāciju

(Lieta Nr. COMP/M.3858 — Lehman Brothers/SCG/Starwood/Le Meridien)

(2005/C 203/04)

(Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ)

2005. gada 20. jūlijā Komisija nolēma necelt iebildumus pret augstāk paziņoto koncentrāciju un paziņo, ka tā ir saderīga ar kopējo tirgu. Šis lēmums ir balstīts uz Padomes Regulas (EK) Nr. 139/2004 6. panta 1. punkta b) apakšpunktu. Lēmuma pilns teksts ir pieejams vienīgi angļu un tiks publicēts pēc tam, kad tiks noskaidrots, vai tas ietver jelkādus komercnoslēpumus. Tas būs pieejams:

----
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2013-0701

 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM073AD

727-57-0112, R4 --- 10/29/92

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
Johnnie L. HAYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1235

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Christopher Randall KIRBY

CR-15-1389

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 7, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Exhibit
23.1



CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



As
independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-236235
on Form S-4, Registration Statement Nos. 333-228501, and 333-232798 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-212062, 333-207709,
333-218636, and 333-220907 on Form S-8 pertaining to the 2008 Stock Plan, 2009 Stock Plan, and 2015 Equity Incentive Plan of Ritter
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated March 31, 2020, with respect to the financial statements of Ritter Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (which report includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the uncertainty of the Company’s ability to continue as
a going concern) for each of the years in the two year period ended December 31, 2019, included in this annual report on Form
10-K/A of Ritter Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2019.



|/s/
    Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. | 
|--------------------------------- | 
|                                  | 
|Los Angeles, California           | 
|April 24, 2020                    |
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Environmental Energy Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that:  1.     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending September 30, 2006 (the "Report") of the Company complies in all material respects 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/ Greg Holsted  Greg Holsted, Chief Financial Officer  Date:  July 24, 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

GEORGE STRZELCZYK,

Petitioner

v.

PENNA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 177 MM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of February

, 201 7

, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED , and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and the

Application for Appointment of Counsel are DENIED

.
| 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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the      dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company      for the periods presented. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/David      Davis                                                      |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  David      Davis                                                               |
|  Title:    |  Principal      Executive Officer,Principal      Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  November      17, 2009                                                         |
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Steve Fruh/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/12/2010 04:11 PM

Subject: Part of E.O. 12866 Review: Interagency Discussion about the clarification of more info in RIA 

pertaining to NESHAP: Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants 2060-AN99

Hi Sharon,

The interagency reviewers have raised questions about the methodology used to transform electricity 

consumption reductions into air emissions reductions, and in turn, into monetized health benefits.

Those questions are as follows:

1. In Table 5-2 (and Appendix B-2), the estimated reduction in electricity consumption is assumed to 

result in an equal amount of reduced electricity production. Can EPA please explain that basis of that 

assumption? Furthermore, no price effect was estimated for the consumption reduction and demand 

reduction. Can EPA explain why the analysis did not consider price effects of this reduced demand?

2. The analysis assumes that the reduction in production will occur at the nearest power plant to the 

chlor-alkali facility. Can EPA explain that assumption? Alternatively, was the use of regional emissions 

factors (emissions/kWh) considered? Finally, is EPA assuming that the energy portfolio mix for these 

providers from 2010 will remain the same in 2013?

3. The emissions factors used are pulled from 2 sources -- eGrid (NOx, SO2, CO2, and Hg) and COBRA 

(PM2.5, NH3, VOC). As EPA stated in their response, the emission information for eGRID is based on 

2005 data and the emissions inventory for CAIR was developed in 2005, and projected to 2010 and 

2015. Were any adjustments made to account for the fact that emissions factors may be different in 

2013 than in the baseline or projection years? That is, are these emission factors accurate for 2013? If 

not, what are the uncertainties in these emissions factors? Did EPA consider regulations or other factors 

that would change those emissions factors by 2013?

4. The link provided to the benefits per ton estimates (http://www.epa.gov/air/benmap/bpt.html)

shows a series of tables for different analysis years (2015, 2020, 2025). Can EPA explain what dollar year 

those numbers are in (e.g. the analysis year), and what VSL was used?

5. Has EPA considered that for units subject to trading under the Acid Rain program or other trading 

programs, the estimated emission reductions may not occur because the reductions would occur 

elsewhere because of trading?

And more generally:

1. This co-benefit analysis presumes there is a single preexisting market failure -- direct PM and PM 

precursor emissions from electricity. Did EPA consider other market failures for their analysis: imperfect 

competition, other pollutants, labor income taxes, etc.

Regards,

Cortney
|    |                                                                                                           |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Weatherford International 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; |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |
|   |   |   |   |
|   | Date:  April 16, 2014 |   |
|   |   |   |   |
|   | /s/Bernard J. Duroc-Danner |   |
|   | Bernard J. Duroc-Danner |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
Michael B. KINEARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-353

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.