alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**
**Exhibit 31.4**

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to**

**Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Jeffrey M. Stafeil, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed thisAmendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Adient plc for the year ended September 30, 2018; 

2. Basedon 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 withrespect to the period covered by this report; and 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, 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. 

 
By: 
/s/ Jeffrey M. Stafeil
 Jeffrey M. Stafeil Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate: June 24, 2019**
#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States.

No. 6762.

Entry No. 737502, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, December 31, 1941, etc.

Certified January 6, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 11, 1942, etc.

(Decided January 14, 1947)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items-of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act of 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6-Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the. Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (e)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

The cited case has been incorporated herein by consent of the parties who further agree on a set of facts, embodied in a written stipulation submitting the present cases, showing export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values are the appraised values of the articles in question, less additions made by the importers on entry because of advances in similar cases.
No. 46939.

#### Protests 71120-G, etc., of Julius Blum & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Blum*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 119, C. D. 381) the structural steel shapes in question were held dutiable at one-fifth of 1 cent per pound under paragraph 312 as claimed.
EXHIBIT 32.2



                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 Trinity Learning Corporation (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Christine R. Larson, Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and 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.


Date: June 14, 2004

                                                  /S/ Christine R. Larson
                                                  -----------------------
                                                  Christine R. Larson
                                                  Chief Financial Officer



          A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
          has been provided to Trinity Learning Corporation and will be retained
          by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
          staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 85 (Thursday, May 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 24637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8430]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the 
week of May 7, 2007:

    An Open Meeting will be held on Monday, May, 7, 2007 at 9 a.m. 
in the Auditorium, Room L-002, and a Closed Meeting will be held 
Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 2 p.m.

    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting scheduled for Monday, May 7, 
2007 will be:

    The Commission will hold a roundtable discussion regarding 
shareholder rights and the federal proxy rules. The discussion will 
address the federal role in upholding shareholders' state law 
rights, the purpose and effect of the federal proxy rules, non-
binding proposals under the proxy rules, and binding proposals under 
the proxy rules.

    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 
8, 2007 will be:
    Formal orders of investigations;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature; an adjudicatory matter; and
    Other matters related to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: April 30, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8430 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
1 April 29, 2016

Memorandum of Phone Call regarding RMP Proposed Rule

Kathy Franklin, Office of Emergency Management, USEPA

Adrienne Timmel, Keller and Heckman, LLP

Ms. Timmel was confused about the schedule for the third party audits in the RMP Proposed Rule as cited in the proposed 40 CFR 68.79 (h) and when the third

- party audits would need to

commence.
On page 13607 of the RMP proposed rule, 40 CFR 68.79 (h) states :

(h) Schedule for conducting a third

- party audit. The audit and audit report shall be completed, and the audit report submitting to the implementing agency pursuant to §68.80(c)(3) as follows, unless a different timeframe is specified by the implementing agency:

(1) W ithin 12 months of when any third

- party audit is required pursuant to paragraphs (f) and/or (g) of this section; or

(2) Within three years of completion of the previous compliance audit,
whichever is sooner.

Ms. Franklin explained that the proposed schedule for third

- party audits is for when the audit and audit report must be completed, not commenced.

Ms. Timmel asked, as a hypothetical case , if January 2016 was the beginning of new 3

- year cycle for the compliance audits (last audit being completed in December 2015) and an accident occurred in February 2016, would that mean that a third

- party audit must be completed by
J anuary 2019 (3 years later) ? Ms. Franklin said no, that the third

- party audit would have to be completed within 12 months, or by February 2017. Having an accident triggers the third

- party audit requirement which in this case requires an audit sooner than within 3 years. However, completion of this audit would resets the 3

- year compliance audit cycle.

An example is given on pages 13689 (Table 12) and 13690 of the rule explaining how a facility with the last compliance audit completed by April 5, 2020 an d who had an accident on July 5, 2021, would require the owner or operator to hire a third

- party auditor to perform a third

- party compliance audit and submit an audit report to the implementing agency and owner/operator
within 12 months of the accident.

The preamble language also explains (page 13690) that if the source’s next scheduled compliance audit was required sooner than one year following the incident, the third

- party audit would be required to be completed by the scheduled compliance date unless the implementing agency approved an extension. Ms. Franklin gave an example where the next scheduled compliance date happened to be one month after the accident date. In this case, the third

- party audit would have to be completed within one month. If th e facility believes this would not be2 enough time to complete a third party audit, then they could request an extension for more time to complete the audit fr o m their implementing agency.

Ms. Franklin said that fmore detailed examples could be provided in the final rule and/or guidance materials to explain the deadlines for third party audits for various situations.
# C_2017283EN.01003301.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — Estonia v Commission

(Case T-157/15) (1)

1

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Estonia - Cross compliance - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Principle of sound administration - Legal certainty))

(2017/C 283/48)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented initially by K. Kraavi-Käerdi, subsequently by N. Grünberg, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission (represented by: A. Sauka and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33) to the extent that it concerns the expenditure incurred by the Republic of Estonia amounting to EUR 691 746,53.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Estonia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Estonia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.

1

---
(Reap. Dec. 9387)

#### Finwood Industries, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 7904.

(Decided April 7, 1959)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeal for reappraisement enumerated above relates to plywood, exported from Finland in the year 1955, and was submitted for decision upon stipulation of counsel for the parties limiting the appeal to the items of merchandise which were advanced in value and appraised on the basis of home market value.

On the agreed facts I find foreign value, as defined in section 402(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the said merchandise, and that such value, in each instance, was the appraised unit value, less 4 per centum, packed.

As to all items of merchandise where appraisement was based upon the entered invoice unit values, the appeal, having been abandoned, is dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 80 (Thursday, April 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20870-20871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7957]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employee Benefits Security Administration


137th Meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and 
Pension Benefit Plans; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, the 
137th open meeting of the full Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and 
Pension Benefit Plans will be held on May 11, 2007.
    The session will take place in Room S-2508, U.S. Department of 
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. The purpose 
of the open meeting, which will run from 1:45 p.m. to approximately 
4:30 p.m., is to swear in the new members, introduce the Council Chair 
and Vice Chair, receive an update from the Acting Assistant Secretary 
of Labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration, and 
determine the topics to be addressed by the Council in 2007.
    Organizations or members of the public wishing to submit a written 
statement may do so by submitting 25 copies on or before May 4, 2007 to 
Larry Good, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, U.S. 
Department of Labor, Suite N-5623, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210. Statements received on or before May 4, 2007 will 
be included in the record of the meeting. Individuals or 
representatives of organizations wishing to address the Advisory 
Council should forward their requests to the Executive Secretary or 
telephone (202) 693-8668. Oral presentations will be limited to ten 
minutes, time permitting, but an extended statement may be submitted 
for the record. Individuals with disabilities who need special

[[Page 20871]]

accommodations should contact Larry Good by May 4 at the address 
indicated.
    Further, in accordance with section 512(a)(1) of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the provisions of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act and its implementing regulations 
issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), the charter for 
the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans has 
been renewed.
    The Advisory Council will report to the Secretary of Labor. It will 
function solely as an advisory body and will operate in accordance with 
its charter and with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act. For further information, contact Larry I. Good, Executive 
Secretary, Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit 
Plans, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-8668.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 20th day of April, 2007.
Bradford Campbell,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-7957 Filed 4-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
Exhibit 11



                  UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

               (In millions of dollars, except per share amounts)



                                                       Quarter Ended March 31,
                                                           1997         1996

Earnings Per Share - Primary

Net income                                                $  157       $  157
Less:  Preferred stock dividend                                2            3
       Appreciation on redeemed preferred stock                6            -
Net income for primary income calculation                 $  149       $  154

Weighted average number of common
  and common equivalent shares applicable
  to primary earnings per share calculation
    Weighted average number of shares outstanding    126,406,832  134,502,414
    Dilutive effect of stock options                   4,227,498    4,739,654
                                                     130,634,330  139,242,068

Earnings per share - primary                              $ 1.14       $ 1.11




Earnings Per Share - Fully Diluted

Net income for primary income calculation                 $  149       $  154
Add back:  Preferred stock dividend                            2            3
Net income for fully diluted income calculation           $  151       $  157

Weighted average number of common
  and common equivalent shares applicable to
  fully diluted earnings per share calculation
    Weighted average number of shares outstanding    126,406,832  134,502,414
    Dilutive effect of stock options                   4,227,498    5,158,254
    Shares issuable upon conversion of UCC
      convertible preferred stock                     15,853,095   16,200,160
                                                     146,487,425  155,860,828

Earnings per share - fully diluted                        $ 1.03       $ 1.01
No. 56655.

protest 150094-K (Duluth).

#### F. E. Macartney *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
# C_2015205EN.01001801.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 3 April 2015 — Elektriciteits Produktiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland NV v het bestuur van de Nederlandse Emissieautoriteit

(Case C-158/15)

(2015/C 205/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elektriciteits Produktiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland NV

Applicant:

Other party: het bestuur van de Nederlandse Emissieautoriteit

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a situation such as the present, where coal is stored in a coal park where CO2 emissions occur as a result of self-heating, where the centre of the coal park is about 800 meters distant from the edge of the coal-fired power plant, where the two sites are separated from each other by a public road and where the coal is transported from the storage site to the power plant by means of a conveyor belt passing over the road, fall within the scope of the term ‘installation’ as referred to in Article 3(e) of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a situation such as the present, where coal is stored in a coal park where CO2 emissions occur as a result of self-heating, where the centre of the coal park is about 800 meters distant from the edge of the coal-fired power plant, where the two sites are separated from each other by a public road and where the coal is transported from the storage site to the power plant by means of a conveyor belt passing over the road, fall within the scope of the term ‘installation’ as referred to in Article 3(e) of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC?

2

1

| 2. | Does ‘fuel exported from the installation’ in Article 27(2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 (2) of 21 June 2012 on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council refer to a situation such as the present, where coal is lost during storage in the coal park due to combustion resulting from self-heating? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does ‘fuel exported from the installation’ in Article 27(2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 (2) of 21 June 2012 on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council refer to a situation such as the present, where coal is lost during storage in the coal park due to combustion resulting from self-heating?

2

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.

1

(2)  OJ 2012 L 181, p. 30.

2

---
# C_2017374EN.01002901.xml

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Repsol YPF v EUIPO — Basic (BASIC)

(Case T-609/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark BASIC - Earlier national trade names basic and basic AG - Relative ground for refusal - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 374/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by J.-B. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, and subsequently by J. Erdozain López, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel (Munich, Germany) (represented by: D. Altenburg and H. Bickel, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2015 (Case R 2384/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Basic Lebensmittelhandel and Repsol, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 August 2015 (Case R 2384/2013-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 August 2015 (Case R 2384/2013-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and those incurred by Repsol YPF, SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and those incurred by Repsol YPF, SA;

| 3. | Orders Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

1

---