alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.01

                                  SBARRO, INC.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           FISCAL YEAR
                                                                           -----------

                                                 2004          2003          2002           2001            2000
                                                 ----          ----          ----           ----            ----
Fixed charges:
<S>                                             <C>             <C>          <C>           <C>             <C>
Interest expense                                $30,694         $31,039      $30,959       $30,950         $30,243
Rental expense                                   23,486          23,068       23,424        24,154          22,412
                                                 ------          ------       ------        ------          ------
Total fixed charges (1)                         $54,180         $54,107      $54,383       $55,104         $52,655
                                                =======         =======      =======       =======         =======

Earnings available for fixed charges:
Earnings (2)                                    $(4,644)       $(16,811)      $4,447      $(14,574)        $20,067
Add fixed charges                                54,180          54,107       54,383        55,104          52,655
                                                 ------          ------       ------        ------          ------
Total earnings available for fixed charges      $49,536         $37,296      $58,830       $40,530         $72,722
                                                =======         =======      =======       =======         =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (3)             0.9             0.7          1.1           0.7             1.4
                                                   ===             ===          ===           ===             ===
</TABLE>


(1)      Total fixed  charges  consist of interest and one-third of rent expense
         (deemed to be a reasonable  approximation  of the  interest  factor for
         rent).
(2)      Earnings  represents  income  before  income  taxes,  and equity in net
         income (loss) of unconsolidated  affiliates.
(3)      The ratio of  earnings  to fixed  charges  has been  computed  based on
         dividing  total  earnings  available  for fixed  charges by total fixed
         charges.
#### § 910.827 Special performance standards—coal processing plants and support facilities not located at or near the minesite or not within the permit area for a mine.

Part 827 of this chapter, *Special Permanent Program Performance Standards—Coal Processing Plants and Support Facilities Not Located at or Near the Minesite or Not Within the Permit Area for a Mine,* shall apply to any person who conducts surface coal mining and reclamation operations which includes the operation of coal processing plants and support facilities not located at or near the minesite or not within the permit area for a mine.
### §302505. Eligibility and responsibility of certified local government

Any local government—

(1) that is certified under this chapter shall be eligible for funds under section 302902(c)(4) of this title; and

(2) that is certified, or making efforts to become certified, under this chapter shall carry out any responsibilities delegated to it in accordance with such terms and conditions as the Secretary considers necessary or advisable.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3198.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 302505 | 16 U.S.C. 470a(c)(3). | Pub. L. 89–665, title I, §101(c)(3), Oct. 15, 1966, 80 Stat. 915; Pub. L. 91–383, §11, as added Pub. L. 94–458, §2, Oct. 7, 1976, 90 Stat. 1942; Pub. L. 93–54, §1(d), July 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 139; Pub. L. 96–205, title VI, §608(a)(1), (2), Mar. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 92; Pub. L. 96–515, title II, §201(a), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2992. |

Section

The words "or which is making efforts to become so certified" are omitted in paragraph (1) for consistency with section 302902(c)(4) of the new title.
#### George Comerford and Frank Duwaldt, copartners, trading as Comerford & Duwaldt, appellees, v. William E. Balousek, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,559.

Action to recover real estate brokers’ commissions. Judgment for plaintiffs. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. James J. O’Toole, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Reversed with finding of facts.

Opinion filed April 3, 1925.

*634William F. Bigelow, for appellant.

Harry A. Silverstein, for appellees.'

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 290.8 How do I exhaust my administrative remedies? ( a ) If you receive a decision or order issued under chapter II, subchapter B, you must appeal that decision or order to IBLA under 43 CFR part 4, subpart E to exhaust administrative remedies.
( b ) This section does not apply if the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management or the IBLA makes a decision or order immediately effective notwithstanding an appeal.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Effect of Incentive Payments on Hourly Earnings

              																	Olsen, Edith M. 						*Effect of Incentive Payments on Hourly Earnings : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 742*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1943,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4228,			accessed on August 31, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### Arthur E. Collins et al., Copartners, Doing Business as Collins & Sons, Respondents-Appellants, v. Clarence Rhodes, Appellant-Respondent.

Appeal from order which permitted the opening of a default judgment on condition that the judgment stand as security and that a levy upon certain bank accounts remain in effect to be released upon the filing of a surety bond. The plaintiffs appeal on the ground the default judgment should not have been reopened and the defendant appeals from that part of the order which continued the levy or in the alternative, the filing of a surety bond. The defendant was served with a summons and complaint on March 9, 1960 for liquidated damages for goods sold and delivered over a period of years. There is evidence that after such service, the defendant went to the plaintiffs, there was a discussion about the matter and apparently defendant was under the impression that the action was in abeyance pending negotiations. On April 5, 1960 he was advised that a judgment by default had been entered against him for the liquidated damages demanded in the complaint and thereafter an execution wias issued and a levy made on behalf of plaintiffs against various bank accounts in the City of Troy. Thereafter on April 14, 1960, an order to show cause as to why the default should not be opened was obtained and served upon the plaintiffs. Section 108 of the Civil Practice Act gives the court discretionary power at any time within the year to allow the opening of a judgment taken through mistake, surprise, inadvertence or excusable neglect. We find under the circumstances that the exercise of the court’s discretion in allowing the opening of the default judgment was proper. One of the conditions for permitting the opening of the default was that the judgment would stand as security and this is a usual prerequisite of the court in the exercise of its discretion and not seriously contested on this appeal. With reference to the levy on the bank accounts, while it is somewhat unusual, there is evidence in the record that the defendant had withdrawn a substantial amount from some of these accounts prior to the levy and we feel that, under the circumstances, the exercise of the court’s discretion was proper. This is particularly true where the defendant has the alternative of having the levy released upon the filing of a surety bond. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs to plaintiffs-appellants. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
O rder filed March 12, 2015



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

______ ______ ____ 

### No s . 11

- 1 4

- 00 177

- CR , 11

- 1 4

- 00 178

- CR , 11

- 1 4

- 00 179

- CR , & 11

- 1 4

- 00 180

- CR

_________ ______ _ 

### JOHNNY LEE DAVIS , Appellant
V.
THE S TATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 9 0th District Court Stephens County, Texas
Tri al Court Cause No s . F33385, F34015, F34016, & F34017

O R D E R
T h ese appeal s ha ve be come unduly stalled due to the failure of A ppellant’s appointed counsel, J. Bruce Harris , to file an appellate brief

. T he brief in each appeal was originally due on September 29 , 2014

. This court has granted three
motion s for extension in each appeal, extend ing the briefing deadline to
October 29 , 2014 ; December 29, 2014; and March 2, 2015, respectively

. On2 January 15 , 2015, th e clerk of th is court notifi ed Appellant’s counsel that this court deemed the inordinate delay in filing Appellant’s briefs to be a serious matter and
informed counsel that the court expected Appellant’s briefs to be filed by March 2, 2015, with no further extensions. As of this date, we sti ll have not received Appellant’s brief in any of these appeals

. In each appeal, J. Bruce Harris i s ORDERED to file in this court a bri ef on behalf of A ppellant on or before 3:00 p.m. on Thursday , March 26, 201 5

. At that time, Appellant’s brief s shall have already been e

- filed or be present in the portal for the Eleventh Court of Appeals through eFileTexas.gov

.

PER CURIAM

March 12, 2015 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J. , and Bailey, J.
### SUBCHAPTER VII—RETENTION OF RETIRED SPECIALIZED EMPLOYEES AT THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 108–447, div. B, title I, §114(a), Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 2869, and Pub. L. 108–458, title II, §2004(a), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3704, amended chapter identically adding subchapter VII heading.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

30 January 2008

Case T-85/04

**Guido Strack**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Civil service – Officials – Staff reporting – Career development report – 2001/2002 appraisal procedure – Lawfulness of the staff reporting procedure)

**Application:**for annulment of the 2001/2002 appraisal procedure in so far as it concerns the applicant and of the decision which adopted
his career development report for that procedure.

**Held:**The decision adopting the career development report of Mr Guido Strack for the 2001/2002 appraisal procedure is annulled.
The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

**Summary**

*Officials – Reports procedure – Internal directive of an institution – Legal effects – Limits – Observance of the hierarchy
of norms*

*(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)*

There is nothing in principle to prevent the appointing authority from drawing up rules, by means of an internal decision
of general effect, to govern the exercise of the discretion conferred on it by the Staff Regulations. However, the right to
resort to such internal directives is subject to certain limits and, in particular, to the obligation to observe the principle
of the hierarchy of norms.

An internal directive is a norm of a lower order than the Staff Regulations and the provisions adopted for their implementation.
Consequently, the internal directives adopted by the Community institutions concerning the reports procedure cannot lawfully
lay down rules which derogate from the provisions of the Staff Regulations or the General Provisions for Implementing Article
43 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by those same institutions.

Accordingly, since the General Implementing Provisions in force at the Commission provided, in certain situations involving
an alteration of duties or a change of immediate superior, for an obligation to draw up partial appraisal reports and establish
a weighting of the marks awarded by them, that institution could not provide, in an internal directive relating to the appraisal
of staff during a transitional period corresponding to a change of system of reports, for the drawing-up of the report by
the immediate superior in post at the end of the appraisal period, involving a simple consultation of the previous immediate
superiors .

(see paras 38-42)

See: 190/82 *Blomefield* v *Commission* [1983] ECR 3981, para. 1; T‐17/95 *Alexopoulou* v *Commission* [1995] ECR-SC I‐A‐227 and II‐683, para. 23; T‐236/97 *Ouzounoff Popoff* v *Commission* [1998] ECR-SC I‐A‐311 and II‐905, para. 44; T‐198/04 *Merladet* v *Commission* [2005] ECR-SC I‐A‐403 and II‐1833, paras 38, 40, 41 and 43
# Arrêt de la Cour

1..
: State aid – Prohibited – Derogations – Aid for areas affected by the division of Germany – Scope of the derogation – Strict interpretation – Economic disadvantages caused by the isolation created by the frontier established between the two zones

2..
: Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision consistent with previous decisions – Permissibility of summary statement of reasons

3..
: Appeals – Grounds – Plea put forward for the first time in the appeal – Inadmissible

4..
: State aid – Prohibited – Derogations – Aid which may be regarded as compatible with the common market – Aid to remedy serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State – Strict interpretation – Disturbance affecting the whole of the economy of the Member State concerned

5..
: Appeals – Grounds – Plea challenging the decision of the Court of First Instance on costs – Inadmissible where all other pleas rejected

1.
:

2.
:

3.
:

4.
:

5.
:

:

1
:

2
:

3
:

4
:

5
:

6
:

1
:

2
:

3
:

4
:

5
:

─
:

6
:

1.
:

2.
:

3.
:

7
:

─
:

8
:

9
:

10
:

11
:

12
:

13
:

14
:

15
:

7
:

16
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

17
:

18
:

19
:

20
:

21
:

22
:

23
:

24
:

25
:

26
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

27
:

28
:

29
:

30
:

31
:

32
:

33
:

34
:

35
:

36
:

37
:

38
:

39
:

40
:

41
:

42
:

43
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

44
:

: The contested judgment

8
:

9
:

10
:

11
:

129
:

130
:

131
:

132
:

133
:

134
:

135
:

136
:

137
:

138
:

139
:

140
:

141
:

142
:

143
:

144
:

145
:

146
:

147
:

148
:

12
:

13
:

14
:

15
:

16
:

17
:

18
:

19
:

20
:

21
:

22
:

23
:

24
:

25
:

26
:

27
:

28
:

29
:

30
:

31
:

32
:

33
:

34
:

35
:

36
:

37
:

38
:

39
:

40
:

41
:

42
:

43
:

44
:

45
:

46
:

47
:

48
:

49
:

50
:

51
:

52
:

53
:

54
:

55
:

56
:

57
:

58
:

59
:

60
:

61
:

62
:

63
:

64
:

65
:

66
:

149
:

150
:

151
:

152
:

153
:

154
:

155
:

156
:

157
:

67
:

68
:

69
:

70
:

71
:

72
:

73
:

74
:

75
:

76
:

77
:

78
:

79
:

80
:

81
:

166
:

167
:

168
:

169
:

170
:

171
:

172
:

82
:

83
:

84
:

85
:

86
:

87
:

88
:

89
:

90
:

91
:

92
:

93
:

94
:

95
:

96
:

97
:

98
:

99
:

100
:

101
:

102
:

103
:

104
:

203
:

204
:

205
:

206
:

207
:

208
:

209
:

210
:

211
:

212
:

213
:

214
:

215
:

216
:

217
:

218
:

219
:

105
:

106
:

107
:

108
:

109
:

110
:

111
:

112
:

113
:

114
:

115
:

116
:

117
:

118
:

119
:

120
:

121
:

122
:

123
:

124
:

125
:

126
:

127
:

128
:

:

1.
:

2.
:

3.
:

4.
:

---

1 –
: Language of the case: German.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 21

_____________________________
P AUL K. S AFFELL , Husband
, Appellant,

v.

E LIZABETH D. S AFFELL , Wife
, Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. W. Gregg McC aulie , Judge

. May 17 , 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , W INOKUR , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Lester Makofka, Paola Parra Harris
, and Mercedes Blason

Aguilar of Parra Harris Law, PLLC, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Heather B. Quick and Autumn Warner of the Quick Law Group, Jacksonville, for Appellee.
### §96. Repealed. Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, §53, 70A Stat. 641

Section, act July 15, 1939, ch. 283, 53 Stat. 1042, related to purchase by Secretary of War of equipment for experimental and test purposes. See section 4023 of Title 10, Armed Forces.
Presidential Documents

81337 

Federal Register 

Vol. 85, No. 242 

Wednesday, December 16, 2020 

Title 3— 

The President 

Executive Order 13965 of December 11, 2020 

Providing for the Closing of Executive Departments and 

Agencies of the Federal Government on December 24, 2020 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: 

Section 1. All executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government 

shall be closed and their employees excused from duty on Thursday, December 24, 2020, the day before Christmas Day. 

Sec. 2. The heads of executive departments and agencies may determine 

that certain offices and installations of their organizations, or parts thereof, 

must remain open and that certain employees must report for duty on 

December 24, 2020, for reasons of national security, defense, or other public 

need. 

Sec. 3. December 24, 2020, shall be considered as falling within the scope 

of Executive Order 11582 of February 11, 1971, and of 5 U.S.C. 5546 and 

6103(b) and other similar statutes insofar as they relate to the pay and 

leave of employees of the United States. 

Sec. 4. The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall take 

such actions as may be necessary to implement this order. 

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent 

with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. 

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: 

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, 

or the head thereof; or 

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PRESDOC
81338 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Presidential Documents 

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, 

substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party 

against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, 

employees, or agents, or any other person. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

December 11, 2020. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27807 

Filed 12–15–20; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3295–F1–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PRESDOCTrump.EPS</GPH>
FREMONT

CARBON

SWEETWATER

ALBANY

NATRONA

SUBLETTE

LINCOLN

CONVERSE

CROOK

UINTA

LARAMIE

WESTON

PLATTE

GOSHEN

NIOBRARA

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

Rawlins

Casper

Rock Springs

Kemmerer

Pinedale

Newcastle

Yellowstone

National Park

Salt Wells Creek

Divide 

Basin

Little 

Colorado

Adobe Town

Lost Creek

White 

Mountain

Stewart 

Creek

Antelope 

Hills

Out

Desert Wild

LaBarge

Lusk

Yoder

Hanna

Baggs

Afton

Hulett

Glendo

Casper

Douglas

Bairoil

Rawlins

Laramie

Superior

Sundance

Saratoga

La Barge Guernsey

Pinedale

Kemmerer

Evanston

Cheyenne

Wheatland

Wamsutter

Cokeville

Chugwater

Big Piney

Newcastle

Torrington

Rock River

Pine Bluffs

Green River

Medicine Bow

Fort Laramie

Elk Mountain

Rock Springs

Grand Encampment

0 25 50 100

Miles

0 25 50 100

Kilometers

Wyoming Sage-Grouse RMP 

Amendments Planning Area

o

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF 

THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

RMP Amendments Planning Area

Current HMAs

Field Office Boundaries

Counties

Interstate

State / US Hwy

Cities

Map 13: Wild Horse 

Management Areas (HMA)
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Incentive-Wage Plans and Collective Bargaining

              																	Joiner, Fred Henry					 and 	Kennedy, Van Dusen, 1914-. 						*Incentive-Wage Plans and Collective Bargaining : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 717*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1942,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4215,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
§ 1904.2 Definitions. ( a ) Agency or CIA means the Central Intelligence Agency and include all staff elements of the Director of Central Intelligence.
( b ) *Process* means a summons, complaint, subpoena, or other official paper (except garnishment orders) issued in conjunction with a proceeding or hearing being conducted by a federal, state, or local governmental entity of competent jurisdiction.
( c ) *Employee* means any CIA officer, any staff, contract, or other employee of CIA, any person including independent contractors associated with or acting for or on behalf of CIA, and any person formerly having such a relationship with CIA.
( d ) *General Counsel* includes the Deputy General Counsel or Acting General Counsel.