alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21.1

EXAR CORPORATION

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|1. | Micro Power Systems, Inc. (a California corporation).
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------



|2. | Exar IC Canada Corporation (a Canadian corporation).
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------



|3. | Exar SARL (a French limited liability corporation).
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------



|4. | Exar GMBH(a German corporation).
|-- | --------------------------------



|5. | Exar Srl (an Italian corporation).
|-- | ----------------------------------



|6. | Exar Japan Corporation (a Japanese corporation).
|-- | ------------------------------------------------



|7. | Exar Korea Co. Ltd.(a Korean limited liability corporation).
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------



|8. | Exar Malaysia SDN BHD (a Malaysian limited liability corporation).
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------



|9. | Exar Ltd. (a United Kingdom limited liability corporation).
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------



|10. | Exar (Delaware) Corporation Beijing Representative Office.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------



|11. | Exar (Delaware) Corporation Shanghai Representative Office.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------



|12. | Exar (Delaware) Corporation Shenzhen Representative Office.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------



|13. | Exar (Delaware) Corporation Taiwan Representative Office.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                              IKOS SYSTEMS, INC.
                STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (In thousands, except per share data)
<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
 
                                                                           Fiscal Years Ended
                                                       -----------------------------------------------------
                                                       September  28,        September  30,       October 1,
                                                           1996                  1995               1994
                                                          ------               --------             -------
<S>                                                    <C>                  <C>                    <C>  
Income before extraordinary credit...............          $2,451               $3,156               $  841
Extraordinary credit - forgiveness of debt.......              --                   --                  664
                                                           ------               ------               ------
Net income ......................................          $2,451               $3,156               $1,505
                                                           ======               ======               ======
 
Number of shares used in computing 
  per share amounts:
  Weighted average common                                   
    shares outstanding...........................           7,383                5,611                5,455
  Common equivalent shares attributable to 
    stock options (treasury stock method)........             731                  540                  196
                                                           ------               ------               ------ 
Total weighted average common shares outstanding            8,114                6,151                5,651
                                                           ======               ======               ====== 
Per Share:
   Income before extraordinary credit............          $ 0.30               $ 0.51               $ 0.15
   Extraordinary credit..........................             --                   --                  0.12
                                                           ------               ------               ------ 
   Net income....................................          $ 0.30               $ 0.51               $ 0.27
                                                           ======               ======               ======
</TABLE>
257 La. 622

#### Patrick THIBODEAUX v. ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 51165.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1971.

In re: St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 242 So.2d 112.

Writ denied. There is not yet a final judgment in this case.
No. 95-3359

United States of America, on * behalf of the Department of * the Treasury, Internal Revenue * Service, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Woody's R.V. Sales, Inc.; * [UNPUBLISHED] Donald E. Barnett; * Appellants. *

Submitted: March 11, 1996 Filed: March 22, 1996
Before MAGILL, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Woody's R.V. Sales, Inc. and Donald E. Barnett appeal the distric t court's determination that Gale Edd Williams had an ownership interest in
a yacht at the time the IRS levied upon it. Barnett and Williams purchase d the yacht t ogether in 1990. In January 1993, as part of a propert y settle ment agreement, Barnett took possession of the yacht and assume d responsibility for the yacht payments, including the mortgage, maintenance , and repairs. At that time, Williams took posses sion of an automobile that he and Barnett had also jointly owed. He refused, however, to sign an y documents transferring title on the yacht to Bar nett until April 27, 1995, when B arnett agreed to satisfy an outstanding obligation to Williams ' brother-in-law.On April 4, 1995, the IRS levied on the yacht in an effort to c ollect

a $30,000 tax assessm ent owed by Williams. One day later, unaware of the IRS levy, Barnett levied on the yacht in an attempt to collec t approximately $150,00 0 that Williams owed him. Thereafter, Barnett filed
a mo tion for an order in aid of execution with the district court. H e requested that the court declare that Williams had no ownership interest in the yacht or alternatively, that it order pos tponement of the IRS sale. The IRS intervened.

After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Barnett' s motion and upheld the IRS levy. It determined t hat title of the yacht was not unconditionally in Barnett's name until Will iams signed it over to him on August 27, 1995, a fter the IRS levy. In the alternative, the district court held that even if Barnett was the sole owner at the time of the lien , Williams and Barnett were joint owners as to third parties who did not kno w about their agreement.

The evidence before the court supported its conclusion that th e parties did not intend title to pass to Barnett until he fulfilled hi s obli gations to Williams. Because we agree that, under Arkansas law , Williams had an ownership interest in the yacht at the time of the ta x lien, we need not consider the district court's alternative holding in thi s
case.
Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Mary CHARLESTON v. VERI-FRESH POULTRY COMPANY, INC.

No. 53426.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1973.

In re: Veri-Fresh Poultry Company, Inc. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Tangipahoa. 273 So.2d 712.

Writ denied. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000755465
<NAME>                        SANDATA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                   1               
<CURRENCY>                     $               
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,794,947
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,674,301
<ALLOWANCES>                                   443,157
<INVENTORY>                                    27,003
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,193,967
<PP&E>                                         12,117,557
<DEPRECIATION>                                 6,303,176
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10,633,629
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,739,106
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,560
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,173,091
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10,633,629
<SALES>                                        12,488,327
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,826,970
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  12,652,084
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             56,730
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                118,156
<INCOME-TAX>                                   27,885
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            90,271
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   90,271
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .04
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
______________ AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       6,959,785
<SECURITIES>                                17,940,336
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,679,937
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (754,000)
<INVENTORY>                                     92,426
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               470,587
<PP&E>                                       4,628,993
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,147,557)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,870,507
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,733,196
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,174
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,019,090
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,870,507
<SALES>                                      2,811,971
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,811,971
<CGS>                                        1,511,663
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,511,663
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,689,962
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,031,183)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (16,032)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,015,151)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1214 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1214

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To require the purchase of domestically made flags of the United States 
             of America for use by the Federal Government.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``All-American Flag Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR PURCHASE OF DOMESTICALLY MADE UNITED STATES 
              FLAGS FOR USE BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided under subsection (b), only such 
flags of the United States of America, regardless of size, that are 100 
percent manufactured in the United States, from articles, materials, or 
supplies 100 percent of which are grown, produced, or manufactured in 
the United States, may be acquired for use by the Federal Government.
    (b) Waiver.--The head of an executive agency may waive the 
requirement under subsection (a) on a case-by-case basis upon a 
determination that--
            (1) the application of the limitation would cause 
        unreasonable costs or delays to be incurred; or
            (2) application of the limitation would adversely affect a 
        United States company.
    (c) Amendment of Federal Acquisition Regulation.--Not later than 
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal 
Acquisition Regulatory Council established under section 1302 of title 
41, United States Code, shall amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
to implement this section.
    (d) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Executive agency.--The term ``executive agency'' has 
        the meaning given the term in section 133 of title 41, United 
        States Code.
            (2) Federal acquisition regulation.--The term ``Federal 
        Acquisition Regulation'' has the meaning given the term in 
        section 106 of title 41, United States Code.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    Section 2 shall apply to purchases of flags made on or after 180 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. CONSISTENCY WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.

    This Act shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States 
obligations under international agreements.

            Passed the Senate September 16, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1214

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To require the purchase of domestically made flags of the United States 
             of America for use by the Federal Government.
```
Exhibit 99.8

CONSENT OF EXPERT

I, Patrick Garretson,
hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the references to scientific and technical information relating to mineral properties of Barrick Gold Corporation (the Company) in the Annual Information Form for the year ended
December 31, 2016 (the AIF) and the related Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company.

I do also
hereby consent to the use of my name and the incorporation by reference of the information contained in the AIF and Annual Report on Form 40-F into the Registration Statements of the Company on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-121500, 333-131715, 333-135769), Form
F-3 (File No. 333-206417) and Form F-10 (File No. 333-216099).

Yours very truly,



|                      |  |                                       
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|/s/ Patrick Garretson
|Name:                 |  | Patrick Garretson                     
|Title:                |  | Senior Director, Life of Mine Planning
|Dated:                |  | March 24, 2017
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4968

_____________________________ O MAR Q. F ELTON ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

— Original Jurisdiction

.

May 29, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

R OWE , J AY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________2 Omar Q. Felton, pro se
, Petitioner

. Ashley Moody, Atto rney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


                             WEBLINK WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000
                                                -------------------------------------------
                                                   NUMBER          PERCENT       EQUIVALENT
                                                 OF SHARES       OUTSTANDING      SHARES
                                                -----------      -----------    -----------
<S>                                             <C>                 <C>         <C>
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                           2,300,000           100.00%     2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                        2,428,622            77.80%     1,889,467
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock     15,310,943           100.00%    15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                   11,242,857           100.00%    11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                    4,323,874           100.00%     4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                     6,000,000           100.00%     6,000,000
   1999 Treasury Stock Transaction                   (6,588)          100.00%        (6,588)
   March 2000 Debt Swap                           3,789,715            24.18%       916,195
   Canadian Transaction                             714,286            65.93%       470,958
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued       145,737           100.00%       145,737
   Warrants Exercised                               130,513            37.89%        49,450
                                                -----------                     -----------
                                                 46,379,959                      42,642,893

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                              42,642,893

NET LOSS                                                                        (19,895,793)


NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                              $     (0.47)
                                                                                ===========
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Unitil Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned Robert G. Schoenberger, Chief Executive Officer and President, Mark H. Collin, Chief Financial Officer and Laurence M. Brock, Chief Accounting Officer,
certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 |  |                                       |  |                  
|------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|Signature                                        |  | Capacity                              |  | Date             
|                                                 |  |                                      
|/s/ Robert G. SchoenbergerRobert G. Schoenberger |  | Chief Executive Officer and President |  | February 12, 2008
|                                                 |  |                                      
|/s/ Mark H. CollinMark H. Collin                 |  | Chief Financial Officer               |  | February 12, 2008
|                                                 |  |                                      
|/s/ Laurence M. BrockLaurence M. Brock           |  | Chief Accounting Officer              |  | February 12, 2008
## TheHonorable William A. Norris, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth 1 

## Circuit, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-4204

___________ Susan Romeo Joelson, *

Appellant, * v. * District Court for the Seagate Technology, Inc.; Brendan * C. Hegarty, sued as Brenden * (UNPUBLISHED) Hegarty, *

Appellees. * * Appeal from the United States * District of Minnesota

*

___________ Submitted: June 13, 1997 Filed: July 14, 1997

___________ Before MURPHY, LAY, and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. 1

___________ PER CURIAM. SusanRomeo was employed as an executive assistant at Seagat e Techn ology, Inc. After she left her position, she brought this damag e actionalleging gender discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation , defamation, and breach of contract. The

## The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of 2 

## Minnesota. -2- dist rict court granted Seagate's motion for summary judgment. After a 2 carefu l review of the record, we affirm on the basis of the distric t court's opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.