alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Cairo, 21 March 2013

To Whom It May Concern,

IATA Resolution 787 regarding NDC (New Distribution Capability) is concerned to 

enable the airline community to work together to modernize a data transmission standard. 

This will enable airlines to present content rich dynamic information on its wide range 

service offerings to consumers through indirect channels. It is worth to mention here that 

the airline industry trend is to compete on the variety and quality of the ancillary services

offered to its customers.

Airlines are unable to deliver their full product offerings to consumers through the 

indirect channel today because the Global Distribution Systems (GDSs) network are

based on data transmission standards that were developed prior to the Internet revolution. 

This in turn undermines travel agents’ ability to meet the needs of their customers. In the 

same time, this limitation wastes airline efforts to present its competitive advantage in the 

market place.

The Internet and modern data processing capabilities allow airlines to now distribute their 

products directly to consumers without intermediaries. 

An updated data transmission standard based on XML will make it easier, faster, cheaper, 

and much more convenient to provide the customer more information about fare 

alternatives, ancillary services, on board amenities and seat maps. In other words, the 

new data transmission will provide customers more transparency to compare airlines 

products.

On the customer’s privacy side, Resolution 787 and the NDC do not threaten airline 

customers’ privacy rights, as customers will not be required to provide any more 

information about them than what is currently required via the GDS network. Unlike the 

GDS network, customer will have the option to provide personal information about 

themselves in return for personalized offers. 

Sincerely, 

Capt/ Tawfik Assy

Chairman & CEO

EGYPTAIR Holding Co.
§ 211.188 Batch production and control records. Batch production and control records shall be prepared for each batch of drug product produced and shall include complete information relating to the production and control of each batch. These records shall include: ( a ) An accurate reproduction of the appropriate master production or control record, checked for accuracy, dated, and signed;
( b ) Documentation that each significant step in the manufacture, processing, packing, or holding of the batch was accomplished, including: ( 1 ) Dates;
( 2 ) Identity of individual major equipment and lines used;
( 3 ) Specific identification of each batch of component or in-process material used;
( 4 ) Weights and measures of components used in the course of processing;
( 5 ) In-process and laboratory control results;
( 6 ) Inspection of the packaging and labeling area before and after use;
( 7 ) A statement of the actual yield and a statement of the percentage of theoretical yield at appropriate phases of processing;
( 8 ) Complete labeling control records, including specimens or copies of all labeling used;
( 9 ) Description of drug product containers and closures;
( 10 ) Any sampling performed;
( 11 ) Identification of the persons performing and directly supervising or checking each significant step in the operation, or if a significant step in the operation is performed by automated equipment under § 211.68, the identification of the person checking the significant step performed by the automated equipment.
( 12 ) Any investigation made according to § 211.192.
( 13 ) Results of examinations made in accordance with § 211.134.
[43 FR 45077, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 73 FR 51933, Sept. 8, 2008]
# EUR-Lex - 31992L0004 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31992L0004

**Commission Directive 92/4/EEC of 10 February 1992 amending Council Directive 78/663/EEC laying down specific criteria of purity for emulsifiers, stabilizers, thickeners and gelling agents for use in foodstuffs **

*
Official Journal L 055 , 29/02/1992 P. 0096 - 0097 Finnish special edition: Chapter 13 Volume 22 P. 0004 Swedish special edition: Chapter 13 Volume 22 P. 0004 *

COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 92/4/EEC of 10 February 1992 amending Council Directive 78/663/EEC laying down specific criteria of purity for emulsifiers, stabilizers, thickeners and gelling agents for use in foodstuffs

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 89/107/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning food additives authorized for use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption (1), and in particular Article 3 (3) thereof,

Whereas taking into account the specifications as adopted by the Codex Alimentarius and to take into account new production techniques, it is necessary to amend Council Directive 78/663/EEC (2), as last amended by Commission Directive 90/612/EEC (3);

Whereas, in pursuance of Article 6 of Directive 89/107/EEC, the Scientific Committee of Foodstuffs was consulted on the provisions likely to affect public health;

Whereas, the measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Foodstuffs,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

The Annex to Directive 78/663/EEC is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.

Article 2

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 1 June 1993, at the latest, and shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

When Member States adopt these provisions, these shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The procedure for such reference shall be laid down by Member States.

Article 3

This Directive is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 10 February 1992. For the Commission

Martin BANGEMANN

Vice-President

(1) OJ No L 40, 11. 2. 1989, p. 27. (2) OJ No L 223, 14. 8. 1978, p. 7. (3) OJ No L 326, 24. 11. 1990, p. 58.

ANNEX

The Annex to Directive 78/663/EEC is amended as follows:

Under E 473 - Sucrose esters:

(a) the final sentence in the item on the chemical description is replaced by the following sentence:

'No organic solvent other than dimethylsulphoxide, diméthylformamide, ethyl acetate, isopropanol, isobutanol and methylethylketon may be used in their preparation.'

(b) below the point concerning the isobutanol content, the following point is added:

'Methylethylketon content / not more than 10 mg/kg.'
Editorial Note on Part 189
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 189 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; and 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005.

§ 189.120 Cobaltous salts and its derivatives. ( a ) Cobaltous salts are the chemicals, CoC4H6O4, CoCl2, and CoSO4.They have been used in fermented malt beverages as a foam stabilizer and to prevent “gushing.”
( b ) Food containing any added cobaltous salts is deemed to be adulterated in violation of the act based upon an order published in the Federal Register of August 12, 1966 (31 FR 8788).
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT


PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)


OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





Date of report (Date of earliest event reported)


May 25, 2017





PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.


(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)








Minnesota0-2057241-0886515(State or Other Jurisdictionof Incorporation)(CommissionFile Number)(IRS EmployerIdentification No.)


1031 Mendota Heights Road


St. Paul, Minnesota 55120


(Address of Principal Executive Offices, including Zip Code)


(651) 686-1600


(Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code)





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:


oWritten communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)


oSoliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)


oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))


oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))





Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter).


oEmerging growth company





If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. o








---




Item 2.02RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION


On May 25, 2017, Patterson Companies, Inc. issued a press release announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year ended April 29, 2017. A copy of the press release is furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K and is incorporated by reference herein.





Item 9.01FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS





|    |         
|--- | --------
|(d) | EXHIBITS




99.1Press release of Patterson Companies, Inc., dated May 25, 2017.








---




SIGNATURES


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.





PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.Date: May 25, 2017By:/s/ Ann B. GuginoAnn B. GuginoExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)








---




EXHIBIT INDEX





ExhibitNumberDescription99.1Press release of Patterson Companies, Inc., dated May 25, 2017.
[No. 39068-6-I.

Division One.

December 1, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Bashimi Briscoe, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-08102-5, Donald D. Haley, J., entered July 22, 1996. *Affirmed by*unpublished per curiam opinion.
<PAGE>   1

                                                             THOMAS H. NELSON
                                                              (206) 340-9654
 ______________, 1998                                     tnelson@grahamdunn.com



                                                                     EXHIBIT 8.1

   
Glacier Bancorp, Inc.                                  HUB Financial Corporation
202 Main Street                                        3030 N. Montana Avenue
Kalispell, Montana  59903                              Helena, Montana  59601
    

        Re: Holding Company Merger / Tax Consequences

Ladies and Gentlemen:

   
        This letter responds to your request for our opinion as to certain of
the federal income tax consequences of the proposed merger (the "Merger") of HUB
Financial Corporation ("HUB"), a Montana corporation and bank holding company,
into Glacier Bancorp, Inc. ("Glacier"), a Delaware corporation and bank holding
corporation.
    

        We have acted as legal counsel to Glacier in connection with the Merger.
For the purpose of rendering this opinion, we have examined and relied upon
originals, certified copies, or copies otherwise identified to our satisfaction
as being true copies of the originals of the following documents, including all
exhibits and schedules attached to them:

        (a)     The Plan and Agreement of Merger, dated as of December 30, 1997,
                between Glacier and HUB (the "Merger Agreement");

        (b)     Agreement and Plan of Share Exchange, dated as of December 30,
                1997, between Glacier and Valley Bank of Helena ("VB");

        (c)     Form S-4 Registration Statement of Glacier filed with the
                Securities and Exchange Commission on _________, 1998;

        (d)     The Proxy Statement of HUB (included as part of the Registration
                Statement);

        (e)     The Proxy Statement of VB (included as part of the Registration
                Statement);

        (f)     The factual representations set forth in a letter from Glacier
                and HUB, dated ___________________, 1998; and

        (g)     Such other documents, instruments, records and information
                pertaining to the Merger as we have deemed necessary for
                rendering our opinion.
**Exhibit31.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, Keith Stentiford,certify that

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Spescom Software Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

 

a) designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosed in this quarterlyreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting

 

 
| Dated:   February 14, 2006 |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                 |
| /s/ Keith Stentiford                 |   |
| Keith Stentiford                     |
|                                 |
| Chief Executive Officer              |

 

----
August 28, 2012 

Mr. Paul Gretch 

Ms. Esta Rosenberg 

Office of International Aviation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

 

Re: Application of US Airways, Inc. for Amendment of a Statement 

of Authorization (Display VS Code on US Airways-Operated 

Flights between the United States and the United Kingdom) 

(Docket DOT-OST-2007-27349)

Dear Mr. Gretch and Ms. Rosenberg: 

 We have polled the air carriers on the attached service list regarding the 

above-referenced Application. We received no objections. 

 Accordingly, we respectfully request expedited consideration of this 

Application. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Benjamin T. Slocum 

Howard Kass 

Vice President – Legal and Government Affairs 

Benjamin T. Slocum 

Director and Assistant General Counsel 

Attachment 

cc: Service List 

1401 H Street NW, Suite 1075 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 326-5154 Fax: (202) 898-4810 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that, on August 28, 2012, I caused to be served a copy of the 

foregoing Letter by email upon those addressees listed below: 

urskr@state.gov (Department of State)

esta.rosenberg@dot.gov (Department of Transportation) 

mary.street@dot.gov (Department of Transportation) 

brett.kruger@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

john.allen@faa.gov (Federal Aviation Administration) 

dan.weiss@united.com (United) 

steve.morrissey@united.com (United) 

jonathan.linde@united.com (United)

francis.heil@aa.com (American) 

robert.wirick@aa.com (American)

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com (Delta)

anita.mosner@hklaw.com (Counsel for Virgin Atlantic and UPS) 

jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com (Counsel for Virgin Atlantic and UPS) 

cefelts@fedex.com (FedEx) 

nssparks@fedex.com (FedEx) 

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com (Polar) 

rpommer@atlasair.com (Atlas) 

 /s/ Benjamin T. Slocum 

 

 Benjamin T. Slocum
###### Editorial Note on Part 177

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 177 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

#### § 177.1900 Urea-formaldehyde resins in molded articles.

Urea-formaldehyde resins may be safely used as the food-contact surface of molded articles intended for use in contact with food, in accordance with the following prescribed conditions:

(a) For the purpose of this section, urea-formaldehyde resins are those produced when 1 mole of urea is made to react with not more than 2 moles of formaldehyde in water solution.

(b) The resins may be mixed with refined wood pulp and the mixture may contain other optional adjuvant substances which may include the following:

| List of substances | Limitations |
| --- | --- |
| Hexamethylenetetramine | For use only as polymerization-control agent. |
| Tetrachlorophthalic acid anhydride | Do. |
| Zinc stearate | For use as lubricant. |

(c) The finished food-contact article, when extracted with the solvent or solvents characterizing the type of food and under the conditions of time and temperature characterizing the conditions of its intended use as determined from tables 1 and 2 of § 175.300(d) of this chapter, yields total extractives in each extracting solvent not to exceed 0.5 milligram per square inch of food-contact surface as determined by the methods described in § 175.300(e) of this chapter.

Note:

In testing the finished food-contact article, use a separate test sample for each required extracting solvent.
### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-00-00670-CR Glenn E ric H amil

ton, Appell

ant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DIS TRICT NO. 48,336, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING Appe llantGle

nn Eri c Ham il to n was pl

aced o n de f er re d adj udi ca

ti on com m un i ty su pervi si on af ter he pleade d gui

l ty to agg ravated s ex

ual ass aul t. SeeTex. Penal

Code Ann . § 22.021 (West Supp. 2 001). T he co ur t lat er r ev o ke d s up er vis io n, ad ju di ca t ed ap pe llan t gu ilt y, and i mposed sentence of im

prisonm ent for t wenty-three years. Appellant’s co ur t - ap po int ed at t o rne y filed a b r ief c o nc lud ing t ha t t he ap pe al is fri volousand wi

thout m eri t. The b rief meets th e req ui re men ts o f Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967 ), by pre sent ing a pr ofe ssio nal evalua t ion o f the re co rd demo nst ra t ing why t her e ar e no ar gu ab le grounds t o be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio , 48 8 U. S. 75 ( 198 8); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 78) ; Currie v. State , 516 S. W.2d 684 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 74) ; Jackson v. State , 485 S. W.2d 553 (T ex. Cr im. App . 19 72) ; Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of

counsel ’s b

rief was del iv ered t o a ppe llant, and a ppe llantwas advise d o f his right to exam in e the appel

la te recor d and to file

a pro se brie f. No pro se bri ef h as been fi le d.2 We have r eviewe d t he record and counsel ’s b rief and agree that the appeal

is fri volous an d w it ho ut mer it . We find no t hing in t he r ec o r d t ha t migh t ar gu ab ly su pp o r t t he ap pe al.

The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

__________________________________________ Jan P. Patterson, Justice Be f ore C hi ef Ju sti ceA bouss i e, J us ti ce s Y ea

ke l an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: June 29, 2001 Do No t Publis

h
#### § 26.70 Conformity assessment bodies.

Each party recognizes that the conformity assessment bodies (CAB's) listed in subpart B of this part fulfill the conditions of eligibility to assess conformity in relation to its requirements as specified in subpart B of this part. The parties shall specify the scope of the conformity assessment procedures for which such bodies are listed.
§ 26.12 Nature of recognition of inspection reports. ( a ) Inspection reports (containing information as established under § 26.8), including a good manufacturing practice (GMP) compliance assessment, prepared by authorities listed as equivalent, will be provided to the authority of the importing party. Based on the determination of equivalence in light of the experience gained, these inspection reports will normally be endorsed by the authority of the importing party, except under specific and delineated circumstances. Examples of such circumstances include indications of material inconsistencies or inadequacies in an inspection report, quality defects identified in the postmarket surveillance or other specific evidence of serious concern in relation to product quality or consumer safety. In such cases, the authority of the importing party may request clarification from the authority of the exporting party which may lead to a request for reinspection. The authorities will endeavor to respond to requests for clarification in a timely manner.
( b ) Where divergence is not clarified in this process, an authority of the importing country may carry out an inspection of the production facility.