alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          31,759                  28,639
<SECURITIES>                                    27,711                  23,802
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,959                  12,599
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,175                   1,134
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,831                  75,482
<PP&E>                                           5,298                   5,248
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,423                  81,560
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,075                  22,635
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                  13,911
<COMMON>                                         1,435                   1,204
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,892                  43,260
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,423                  81,560
<SALES>                                         53,818                  58,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                88,948                  83,554
<CGS>                                           10,510                  12,045
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,114                  28,029
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,086                  10,418
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,922                  17,428
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,393                   2,507
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,529                  14,921
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,529                  14,921
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.60                    1.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58                    1.05
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31B
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Michael J. Rockenbach, certify that:
     1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Emulex Corporation;
     2.      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport in being prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
     5.      The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.
Date: May 6, 2005
/s/ Michael J. Rockenbach
# CE2004078EN.01031301.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/313 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/313

---

(2004/C 78 E/0314)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3693/03

by Armin Laschet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject:   Unpublished study on anti-Semitism drawn up by the EUMC

Subject:

| 1. | Can the Commission say whether it agrees with the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) that the study drawn up by the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism at the Technical University in Berlin in October 2002 should not be published? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say whether it agrees with the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) that the study drawn up by the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism at the Technical University in Berlin in October 2002 should not be published?

| 2. | If so, for what reasons? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, for what reasons?

| 3. | If not, whether it will try to ensure that the study drawn up by the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism at the Technical University in Berlin is published as soon as possible? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If not, whether it will try to ensure that the study drawn up by the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism at the Technical University in Berlin is published as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2004)

(13 January 2004)

The report on anti-Semitism to which the Honourable Member refers was carried out by the Berlin Technical Institute under contract to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) and not the Commission. A statement by the EUMC issued on 26 November 2003 rejects the allegations that the report was ‘shelved’. In this statement, the Chair of the Management Board stated that the members of the Management Board ‘considered the work undertaken by the contractors to be of poor quality and lacking in empirical evidence’. The Chair also made clear his regret that a ‘collective decision of the Board based purely on the insufficient quality of the research carried out by the Berlin Centre has been used to discredit the important work which the EUMC has to do in the fight against racism and xenophobia in Europe’.

The Management Board of the EUMC which took the collective decision on the quality of the research is composed of 15 independent and eminent experts in the field of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism as well as a representative of the Commission, the Council of Europe and the Parliament.

The research in question has now been published on the EUMC website at the following address: http://www.eumc.eu.int/eumc/index.php.

The report is accompanied by a statement setting out why the Management Board deemed the research to be of insufficient quality.

---
# CE2004088EN.01069901.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/699 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/699

---

(2004/C 88 E/0718)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0526/04

by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Enlargement of Arinaga port (Gran Canaria, Spain)

Subject:

The Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Port Authority has made public (Canaries Official Journal of 14 November 2003) the Basic Arinaga Port Extension Scheme which affects the towns of Agüimes and Santa Lucía. The future quay occupying 2,2 km of coastline, is intended for loading and unloading passengers and goods such as gas and oil. The damage which the building work to enlarge Puerto de Aringa will cause is far greater than the questionable socio-economic benefits it may provide, quite apart from its impact on the fabric of business life in Puerto de La Luz and Las Palmas, as a result of diverting part of container traffic and shipping to Puerto de Arinaga. The scheme will have grave effects on the most productive of the coastal marine ecosystems and the sebadales, shrinking the breeding and growing area for the species which are of interest to the fishermen of Agüimes (19 284 inhabitants) and Santa Lucía (40 011 inhabitants). Moreover, it will affect the prospects for developing ‘green’ tourism in the area. The scheme's environmental impact study has not been drawn up with the requisite methodological seriousness and expertise, since many of its claims are quite unjustified from a scientific point of view (e.g.: existing alternatives to this new port, absence of impact on the coastal sedimentation patterns and therefore on Playa del Inglés and Playa de Maspalomas; the absence of effects on the natural wave and wind patterns at Pozo Izquierdo, Europe's most important windsurfing site; the absence of effects on the Playa del Cabrón site of Community interest (SCI) and on the sebadales of Arinaga Bay; the failure to quantify the populations of protected species affected, or the interest of the area in the island context; the real value of the scheme to the population of the surrounding towns; the loss of leisure opportunities and of exploitable marine resources).

Can the Commission demand that alternative schemes be investigated, which would not have a negative impact on the SCI and important bird areas affected by this scheme, nor prejudice the development prospects for sustainable activities in the area, such as water sports, fishing, shellfishing, bathing and leisure?

---
# CE2004078EN.01059901.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/599 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/599

---

(2004/C 78 E/0632)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3584/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Receipt of supplementary reply

Subject:

On 6 March, Mrs Reding replied on behalf of the Commission to written question E-3868/02 (1), and stated that the Commission would provide a supplementary reply.

1

Why has no supplementary reply so far been sent concerning equal treatment of children studying at secondary schools or secondary vocational education establishments in the Netherlands, who are eligible for a Dutch study grant, and of Dutch children studying at secondary schools or secondary vocational education establishments in Germany or Belgium, who do not receive study grants?

When can the supplementary reply be expected?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2004)

(23 January 2004)

After giving the question close attention, the Commission decided to contact the Dutch authorities to verify whether the legislation relating to the awarding of study grants was in conformity with the provisions of Community law relating to freedom of movement, because although it is up to the Member States to set the conditions governing access to their national education systems and the conditions governing the awarding of study grants to students wishing to study in another Member State, the Member States must nevertheless observe Community law and in particular the principle of non-discrimination, as confirmed by the Judgment of the Court of Justice in the Meeusen case (C-337/97).

On the basis of the documentation obtained, the Commission has no evidence that grants are awarded for study in the Netherlands in contravention of the principles of freedom of movement.

In particular:

| — | Dutch students have the right, and make use of the right, to study in other countries of Europe; |
| --- | --- |

—

Dutch students have the right, and make use of the right, to study in other countries of Europe;

| — | students who are nationals of other countries of the Union have the right to study in the Netherlands. |
| --- | --- |

—

students who are nationals of other countries of the Union have the right to study in the Netherlands.

---

(1)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 157.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2451

ZHENG FANG WENG,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A73-170-454)

Submitted: March 16, 2005 Decided: March 25, 2005

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zheng Fang Weng, Petitioner Pro Se. James Arthur Hunolt, Song E.

Park, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Zheng Fang Weng, a native and citizen of China, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of

his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture. 

To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility

for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was

so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the

requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and

conclude that Weng fails to show that the evidence compels a

contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Weng cannot

meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal.

Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v.

Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). 

We also uphold the IJ’s finding that Weng failed to

establish eligibility for protection under the Convention Against

Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). Finally, we reject

Weng’s claim that he was not accorded due process in that he was

not provided sufficient opportunity to explain his inconsistent

asylum applications, as this claim is belied by the record. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
CIVILIAN F.~1PLOT.~NT ~OA!Ui 

Minutes oi Speoiel •eeting Held 

'27 Jo nufl ry 194 7, R~ 211. , Hq • 

raISUi'i'& 

Lt. Colonel John M. Libby 

llajor Ha~111 D. Jone1 

L:r. frank B. Rot1lett 

Vir. Alfred fi. RoPe 

Kr. John L. Sulliven 

llr. D. Glenn St.. rlin 

1. U.AVl ~lTHOOT PAI i'OR i·R. !D"'ARD C. JCA.LB 

In keeping with procedure outlined in CFt0ranau11 No. 9f, r.Ed11~etional Opportunities 

tor Career Ewployeee", the Board mot to coneidPr a T'f>~~st for tlx (6) ~onths leave 

without pay submitted by ~r. EdYi'Brd c. Kalb. ~r. Kalb wishes to pursue studies ro~ 

a PhD at the University of Illinois. 

The besic request and the indore~ents of his eection, brench and division chiefs 

were reed by Board n:errbere ar..d after limited cHecuPBion, the Boore unanimously voted 

approval of the request. 

Ueet1ng adjourned. 

Chairr-.en, Civilian 

E!!:.plOJnil~nt Board 

eclassified and approved for release by 

SA on 04-17-2014 ursuantto E.O. 1352
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


                                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN


March 30, 2000 Santiago, Chile



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration
statement filed on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-93885, 333-87415 and 333-76771) of report
dated February 4, 2000, on our audits of the financial statements of Ferronor
S.A. (a Chilean corporation and subsidiary of RailAmerica) included in the
RailAmerica, Inc. Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.


/s/ Charles A. Bunce

Charles A. Bunce                                ARTHUR ANDERSEN-LANGTON CLARKE
(Partner)


Santiago, Chile
.. • 

USCIB· 'J2./2 31 

5 March 1954 

MEMORANPUM FOR 'lHE MEMBERS OF U§CIB. 

Subject· Ratification or SHAPE nyn Conference decisions. 

Reference: CIB # 000268 or .31 December 195.3. 

1. The enclosure is circulated for information in connection 

vi.th the reference. 

2. The NSA serial 000.30-S of 19 January 1954 referenced in 

paragraph 1 of the enclosure was a request for ratification of the 

papers circulated under cover or CIB fl 000268 of .31 December 195.3 

and was sent only to the Military Service Members or the Board. 

3. This memorandum may be downgraded to COOIDmTIAL when 

separated .from the enclosure. 

Enclosure 

NSA ser 00073-S dtd 2.3 Feb 54. 

USCIB· .32./2 

'FB-P SECRET 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 01-28-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
:rer SJ!lefll' 

NATI(llAJ, SECURITY AGENCY 

WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

• 

SUBJECT· Ratification of SHAPE •yn Conference Decisions 

TO· Assistant Chier ot statr, G-2 

Department of the Army 

The Pentagon 

Chief of Naval Operations (OP-.'.32) 

The Pentagon 

Director of Intelligence 

u. s. Air Force 

The Pentagon. 

Serial:00073-S 

23 Feb 54 

l. Reference is made to NSA Serial 000.30-S, dated 19 January 

1954, subject as above. 

2. The Director of Naval Intelligence and the Director ot 

Intelligence, USAF, concurred in the ratification of the $HAPE nyn 

Conference decisions without change. 

3. The Assistant Chief o.f Staff, G-2, con.curred in the proposal 

to ratify these decision.a, provided it was made clear to SACEUR that 

U.S. Army nyn units were not to be placed under the cQDl!Mnd of .formation commanders, as stated in paragraph 12, Annex c, of Inclosure 1 

with the Reference. The Assistant Chief of Staff (Intelligence), SHAPE, 

accepted the U.S. interpretation of this paragraph. 

4. The decisions of the SHAPE nyn Conference have now been ratii'ied 

by the three participating nations. ACo!S (I), SHAPE, has stated he 

would approach representatives of the Netherlands on 8 February as his 

first step in expanding the scope of the SHAPE nyn structure. 

Copies .furnished: 

Executive Secretary, USCIB 

CNO (OP-202) 

(Signed) 

RALPH J. CANINE 

Lieutenant General, US ArarJ 

Director 

Enclosure with USCIB 32./2 f~~ UG;J/;.BT
# CE2004084EN.01029201.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/292 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/292

---

(2004/C 84 E/0338)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4054/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject:   National waters within the EU's EEZ

Subject:

In response to Written Question P-3011/03 (1), Commissioner Fischler explained on 24 October 2003 that the Member States are responsible for defining their exclusive economic zones and the boundaries between sea areas where such a definition is necessary. The Commission gave the impression that it did not have the information requested readily available. In its Communication towards uniform and effective implementation of the CFP (2), however, it states on page 8 that more than half of the catches of northern hake are taken in ‘Irish waters’. Furthermore, on page 10 it makes reference to ‘the northern part of Dutch waters’.

1

2

In the light of these statements relating to national waters rather than to ICES zones, can the Commission confirm that it does in fact have the information requested in question P-3011/03 which concerned national boundaries within particular ICES zones, and can it now provide this information? If it does not have this information, can it on the other hand explain on what basis its assertions in COM(2003) 130 final were based?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

(11 February 2004)

For the purpose of the Common Fisheries Policy, the term ‘Community waters’ is defined as the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of waters adjacent to non-Community territories mentioned in Annex to the EC Treaty. Therefore, as stated in response to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-3011/03, Member States are responsible for the delimitation of the waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction.

The Commission has no precise information on the delimitations of the waters which have been defined by Member States as waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction.

The statements in the Communication: ‘Towards uniform and effective implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (2)’ as referred to in the written question are based on the following information: the statement ‘more than half of the catches of northern hake are taken in Irish waters’ is based on an approximative aggregation of catch statistics by statistical rectangles presumably lying in waters defined by Ireland as waters under its sovereignty or jurisdiction whilst the reference to ‘the northern part of Dutch waters’ is based on information received from the Netherlands.

2

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

1

(2)  COM(2003) 130 final.

2

---
, J. 

Has de sty 

COL "4 •.---QParraguirr 

, J. 

After the underlying case was appealed, this court reversed in 

part and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings on 

issues concerning petitioner's managerial rights in Granite Investment 

Group, LLC, and the interpretation of, and determination of compliance 

with, the company's operating agreement. Weddell v. H20, Inc., 128 Nev. 

, 271 P.3d 743 (2012). The district court held a hearing on remand and 

subsequently entered an order resolving the issues on October 17, 2012. 

Petitioner filed this petition challenging the district court's order in proper 

person on December 13, 2012. Counsel for petitioner filed a timely notice 

of appeal from the order on December 21, 2012, and the appeal is 

presently pending in this court. Weddell v. Stewart, Docket No. 62366 

(filed Dec. 21, 2012). Accordingly, because petitioner has an adequate 

remedy in the form of an appeal from the October 17 order, and has in fact 

appealed that order to this court, we conclude that petitioner has not 

demonstrated that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is 

warranted, NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844, and we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A • 7 

2 
cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge 

Rolland P. Weddell 

Robison Belaustegui Sharp & Low 

Carson City Clerk 

3 

I