alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
31.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER


PURSUANT
TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,


RULES
13a-14 AND 15d-14


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Hyung
Soon Lee, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this Quarterly Report of Lexon Technologies, Inc. for the period ended
June 30, 2008;





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 small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 Company, including any 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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal
control over financial reporting; and





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


(a) all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting.





Date:
August 14, 2008


/S/Hyung
Soon Lee


Chief
Financial Officer
No. 10-6853.

#### Willie Bud Reed, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1035, 131 S. Ct. 582,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8761.

178 L. Ed. 2d 424,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 09-1520.

#### United States, Petitioner v. Reginald Keith Hagen.

562 U.S. 976, 131 S. Ct. 457,

178 L. Ed. 2d 314,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7866.

October 12, 2010.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.

Same case below, 349 Fed. Appx. 896.
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATIONS I, Gary C. Granoff, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ameritrans Capital Corporation;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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)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; andd)Disclosed in this report any changes 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; and5.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 the equivalent functions):a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)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.Date: May 17, 2010/s/ Gary C. Granoff
Gary C. Granoff
Chief Financial Officer
No. 10-5538.

#### Glo Kaufman, Petitioner v. Robinson Property Group Limited Partnership.

562 U.S. 927, 131 S. Ct. 315,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7307.

178 L. Ed. 2d 205,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 373 Fed. Appx. 494.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
EXHIBIT 12.1

RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS

                             YEARS ENDED NOVEMBER 30

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                   NINE MONTHS    THREE MONTHS
                                                                                                      ENDED          ENDED
                                                                                                   NOVEMBER 30    FEBRUARY 29,
                                          2002           2001           2000          1999            1998            1998
                                          ----           ----           ----          ----         -----------        ----

                                                                      (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
                                                                      ----------------------

<S>                                     <C>            <C>            <C>           <C>            <C>            <C>
Income (Loss) from continuing
  operations before taxes ........      $(34,231)      $(31,914)      $ 18,395      $(14,000)      $(24,551)      $  3,807
                                        --------       --------       --------      --------       --------       --------
Fixed Charges:
  Interest .......................        41,142         40,105         43,989        45,475         33,477          4,104
  Interest factor portion of
    rentals ......................         1,920          1,710          1,440         1,560          1,110            360
                                        --------       --------       --------      --------       --------       --------
                                          43,062         41,815         45,429        47,035         34,587          4,464
                                        --------       --------       --------      --------       --------       --------
Earnings before income taxes and
  fixed charges ..................      $  8,831       $  9,901       $ 63,824      $ 33,035       $ 10,036       $  8,271
Preferred stock dividends ........      $ 14,887       $ 13,282       $ 11,848      $ 10,569       $  7,382       $   --
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
  and preferred stock dividends ..           N/A            N/A          1.11x           N/A            N/A          1.85x
Earnings inadequate to cover fixed
  charges and preferred stock
  dividends ......................      $ 49,118       $ 45,196            N/A      $ 24,569       $ 31,933            N/A
</TABLE>
# C_2015138EN.01004701.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2015 — Braun Melsungen v OHIM (SafeSet)

(Case T-513/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark SafeSet - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 138/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: B. Braun Melsungen AG (Melsungen, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Seiler, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 June 2013 (Case R 1598/2012-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark SafeSet as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders B. Braun Melsungen AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders B. Braun Melsungen AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME (LOSS) AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001059364
<NAME> EAGLE-PICHER HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          10,071
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  123,876
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,377
<INVENTORY>                                     90,499
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               310,998
<PP&E>                                         319,778
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,318
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 842,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          203,066
<BONDS>                                        457,761
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           97,956
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,301
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   842,000
<SALES>                                        913,261
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               913,261
<CGS>                                          725,840
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  725,840
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               162,339
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,060
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (20,387)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,587)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,587)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (28.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (28.16)


</TABLE>
No. 10-5462.

#### Joe Teague, Petitioner v. North Carolina Department of Transportation.

562 U.S. 1088, 131 S. Ct. 696,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9145.

178 L. Ed. 2d 526,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 923, 131 S. Ct. 303, 178 L. Ed. 2d 197, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7222.
# C_2014052EN.01005402.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/54

---

Action brought on 19 December 2013 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-124/13)

2014/C 52/107

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting applicant’s request for assistance.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the applicant an amount of EUR 50 000, as compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant an amount of EUR 50 000, as compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the applicant a quarter of the medical expenses incurred in connection with the deterioration of her state of health, as compensation for the material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant a quarter of the medical expenses incurred in connection with the deterioration of her state of health, as compensation for the material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
**EXHIBIT 12.2****DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES****Calculation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred and Preference Stock DividendRequirements**                       (Millions of Dollars)   Year Ended December 31,   **2005**  2004  2003  2002  2001    **Fixed Charges:**                    Interest on long-term debt **$****47.4**  $45.6  $53.1  $55.2  $62.3 Other interest  **1.3**   1.4   1.5   2.2   0.7 Company obligated mandatorilyredeemable preferred securitiesdividend requirement (a)  **—**   —   6.3   12.6   12.6 Portion of lease payments representingan interest factor  **2.0**   2.5   3.9   1.9   3.1 Dividend requirements  **8.0**   6.6   3.2   3.3   3.4                 Total Fixed Charges **$****58.7**  $56.1  $68.0  $75.2  $82.1                                      **Earnings:**                    Net Income **$****73.0**  $67.8  $69.6  $75.4  $53.4 Income taxes  **42.5**   44.3   45.4   48.9   30.8 Fixed charges as above  **58.7**   56.1   68.0   75.2   82.1                 Total Earnings **$****174.2**  $168.2  $183.0  $199.5  $166.3                                      **Ratio Of Earnings To Fixed Chargesand Preferred and Preference StockDividend Requirements**  **2.97**   3.00   2.69   2.65   2.03                  (a) From July 1, 2003 until their redemption in 2004, dividends on the monthly income preferredsecurities were included with interest on long-term debt due to the adoption of SFAS No. 150.
No. 10-6204.

#### Joel Castro-Gaxiola, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 971, 131 S. Ct. 484,

178 L. Ed. 2d 306,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8019.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
# C_2015096EN.01001601.xml

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v OHIM — Lehning entreprise (ANGIPAX)

(Case T-368/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ANGIPAX - Earlier Community word mark ANTISTAX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 096/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: initially V. von Bomhard and D. Slopek, lawyers, then V. von Bomhard)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Pétrequin and J. Crespo Carrillo, agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Lehning entreprise SARL (Sainte-Barbe, France) (represented by: P. Demoly, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2013 (Case R 571/2012-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and Lehning entreprise SARL.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH to pay the costs, including the expenses necessarily incurred by Lehning entreprise SARL for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH to pay the costs, including the expenses necessarily incurred by Lehning entreprise SARL for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

1

---
# C_2014292EN.01003902.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2014 — Laskiewicz v OHIM — Cables y Eslingas (PROTEKT)

(Case T-18/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark PROTEKT - Earlier Spanish word marks PROTEK - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 73 of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 292/48

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Grzegorz Laskiewicz (Łódź) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Cables y Eslingas SA (Cerdanyola del Valles, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2012 (Case R 701/2011-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Cables y Eslingas SA and Mr Grzegorz Laskiewicz.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Grzegorz Laskiewicz to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Grzegorz Laskiewicz to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 13 April 2013.

1

---
No. 10-488.

#### Vladas Zajanckauskas, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 1030, 131 S. Ct. 586,

178 L. Ed. 2d 415,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8795.

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

*416Same case below, 611 F.3d 87.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Matthews, Appellant.

[56 NYS3d 462]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Quinn, J.), rendered March 24, 2015, convicting him of burglary in the third degree (five counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*799The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at his competency hearing is without merit, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see *People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; see *also People v Sulaiman,*134 AD3d 860, 860 [2015]).

To the extent that the defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw the plea *(see People v Morris,*147 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2017]; *People v Pryor,*11 AD3d 565, 566 [2004]). In any event, the defendant’s plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made *(see People v Fiumefreddo,*82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]). There is no basis in the record to support the conclusion that the defendant lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings against him or that he was unable to assist in his own defense (see *People v Morris,*147 AD3d at 1084; *People v Sulaiman,*134 AD3d at 861; *People v Godfrey,*33 AD3d 623, 624 [2006]).

Balkin, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
No. 09-9115.

#### Darek Haynes, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1079, 131 S. Ct. 634,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9315.

178 L. Ed. 2d 510,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 582 F.3d 686.