alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                                                                       EXHIBIT 5

                               February 19, 1999


Del Webb Corporation
6001 North 24th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85016

         RE:      DEL WEBB CORPORATION 1998 EXECUTIVE LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         We have acted as counsel to Del Webb Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), in connection with its Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (the "Registration Statement") filed under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, relating to the registration of 1,000,000 shares of its Common
Stock, $.001 par value (the "Shares"), issuable pursuant to the Del Webb
Corporation 1998 Executive Long-Term Incentive Plan (the "Plan").

         In that connection, we have examined such documents, corporate records,
and other instruments as we have deemed necessary or appropriate for purposes of
this opinion, including the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation
and the Bylaws of the Company.

         Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that:

         (1)      The Company has been duly organized and is validly existing as
                  a corporation under the laws of the State of Delaware.

         (2)      The Shares, when issued and sold in accordance with the terms
                  of the Plan, will be validly issued, fully paid, and
                  nonassessable.

         The opinions expressed herein are limited solely to the laws of the
State of Delaware. We express no opinion on the laws of any other jurisdiction
or the applicability or effect of any such laws or principles.

         The opinions expressed herein are based upon the law and the other
matters in effect on this date hereof, and we assume no obligation to review or
supplement this opinion should such law be changed by legislative action,
judicial decision, or otherwise, or should any facts or other matters upon which
we have relied be changed.

         We hereby consent to the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                       /s/ SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                      9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         25,626
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               10,964
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    109,614
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           0
<LOANS>                                        479,535
<ALLOWANCE>                                    3,842
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 656,031
<DEPOSITS>                                     500,775
<SHORT-TERM>                                   86,006
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            3,851
<LONG-TERM>                                    15,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       46
<OTHER-SE>                                     50,353
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 656,031
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                18,454
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              4,275
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               520
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               23,249
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             8,758
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12,472
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          10,777
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  29
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             16
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                9,396
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,581
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     2,932
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,932
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .64
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 3.48
<LOANS-NON>                                    390
<LOANS-PAST>                                   680
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               3,860
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  87
<RECOVERIES>                                   40
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              3,842
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           3,842
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0


</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

March 26, 1959

No. 62898.

#### Martin M. Jordan Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/6087, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of harness hardware for use with harness for dogs the same in all material respects as that involved in *International Expediters, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 230, C.D. 1868), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 205 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con. Res.205
                                     Agreed to November 19, 1999        

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

                          Concurrent Resolution

Whereas the 109th Airlift Wing of the Air National Guard is based at 
  Stratton Air National Guard Base in Glenville, New York;

Whereas the 109th was called upon by the United States Antarctic 
  Program to undertake a medical evacuation mission to the South Pole 
  to rescue Dr. Jerri Nielsen, a physician who diagnosed herself with 
  breast cancer;

Whereas the 109th is the only unit in the world trained and equipped to 
  attempt such a mission;

Whereas the 10 crew members were pilot Maj. George R. McAllister Jr., 
  senior mission commander Col. Marion G. Pritchard, co-pilot Maj. 
  David Koltermann, navigator Lt. Col. Bryan M. Fennessy, engineer Ch. 
  M. Sgt. Michael T. Cristiano, loadmasters Sr. M. Sgt. Kurt A. 
  Garrison and T. Sgt. David M. Vesper, flight nurse Maj. Kimberly 
  Terpening, and medical technicians Ch. M. Sgt. Michael Casatelli and 
  M. Sgt. Kelly McDowell;

Whereas the crew departed Stratton Air Base for McMurdo Station in 
  Antarctica via Christchurch, New Zealand, on October 6, 1999;

Whereas on October 15, 1999, Aircraft No. 096 departed McMurdo for the 
  South Pole, where the temperature was approximately -53 degrees 
  Celsius;

Whereas Major McAllister piloted a 130,000 pound LC-130 Hercules cargo 
  plane equipped with Teflon-coated skis to a safe landing on an icy 
  runway with visibility barely above minimums established for safe 
  operations;

Whereas less than 25 minutes later, following an emotional goodbye and 
  brief medical evaluation, Dr. Nielsen and the crew headed back to 
  McMurdo Station;

Whereas the mission lasted 9 days and covered 11,410 nautical miles; 
  and

Whereas Major McAllister became the first person ever to land on a 
  polar ice cap at this time of year: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress recognizes and honors the crew of the Air National 
Guard's 109th Airlift Wing for its heroic efforts in rescuing Dr. Jerri 
Nielsen from the South Pole.
  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JOHN DOUGLAS BITTING, IV,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 297 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 4th day of October, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7117
ARTHUR MCDORN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JENNINGS MCABEE; H ERBERT B. LONG; JULIUS H. BAGGETT; FRANK HARRISON; MCABEE BUILDING SUPPLY, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, Dist rict Judge. (CA-95-3555-0-19BD) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur McDorn Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. McAbee , No. CA-95-3555-0-19BD (D.S.C. June 14, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09

- 13

- 00 490

- CV



### _________________

IN RE JOHN S. MORGAN AND JOHN S. MORGAN, P.C., D/B/A M O RGAN LAW FIRM

________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING
John S. Morgan and John S. Morgan, P.C., d/b/a Morgan Law Firm filed a
motion for rehearing with a supplemental appendix. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.9

. After reviewing the motion for rehearing and the supplemental appendix
, we

conclude Relators have not established that they are entitled to mandamus relief.

Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). We overrule the motion for rehearing.

MOTION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED.

PER CURIAM
Opinion Delivered December 12, 2013 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
No. 58686.

protests 210908-K (A), etc. (New York).

#### Astra Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the cited case, the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JULY 3, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                           1,280
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,562
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,948)
<INVENTORY>                                     17,246
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,782
<PP&E>                                          46,820
<DEPRECIATION>                                (24,259)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,710
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,917
<BONDS>                                          1,090
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           294
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,710
<SALES>                                         41,125
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,286
<CGS>                                           33,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,912
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    21
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (54)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (693)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (693)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (693)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)


</TABLE>
**1997-  turkey_hatchery_12.15.97turkey_hatchery_11.14.97turkey_hatchery_10.15.97turkey_hatchery_09.11.97turkey_hatchery_08.13.97turkey_hatchery_07.15.97turkey_hatchery_06.13.97turkey_hatchery_05.14.97turkey_hatchery_04.15.97turkey_hatchery_03.14.97turkey_hatchery_02.14.97turkey_hatchery_01.13.97

**
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11

                   HOLOPAK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                    COMPUTATION OF (LOSS) EARNINGS PER SHARE

                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 THREE MONTHS                        SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                              ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,                      SEPTEMBER 30,
                                              1998              1997              1998               1997
                                           -----------       -----------       -----------        -----------
<S>                                        <C>               <C>               <C>                <C>        
Net (Loss) Earnings for Computation
 of Net (Loss) Earnings Per Share          $     1,750       $    82,995       $  (120,252)       $    90,285

Total Common Shares and
     Common  Share Equivalents
     Outstanding                             3,347,689         3,347,689         3,347,689          3,347,689

Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share and
     Common Share Equivalents:

Net (Loss) Income                          $      0.00       $      0.02       $     (0.04)       $      0.03
                                           ===========       ===========       ===========        ===========
</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 11, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41514

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAUL TREVINO FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-373-ALL

--------------------

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raul Trevino Flores appeals his sentence for illegal

reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). Although

the Government seeks to dismiss the appeal as barred by the

appellate waiver provision in Trevino Flores’s plea agreement, we

need not decide whether the waiver precludes consideration of the

instant appeal as Trevino Flores’s constitutional challenge is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224,

235 (1998). Although Trevino Flores contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of
No. 05-41514

-2-

the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Trevino

Flores properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light

of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here

to preserve it for further review. His conviction and sentence

are AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31  Certification  I, Vincent Verdiramo , certify that: (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Serino 6, Ltd. (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; (4) The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) (Not required) (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and (5) The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: September 20, 2006   /s/ Vincent Verdiramo _______________________ Principal Executive Officer
ATTACHMENT 4
No. 60641.

#### Senter Brass Products Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 190586-K, 199753-K, and 197979-K (New York).

*470Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of constituent and integral parts of toilet-box assemblies the same in all material respects as those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 220, C. D. 1778), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 21 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 21

 To direct the Senate Legal Counsel to appear as amicus curiae in the 
  name of the Senate in Senator Robert C. Byrd, et al. v. Franklin D. 
                             Raines, et al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 22, 1997

    Mr. Lott (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Coats, and Mr. Stevens) 
 submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To direct the Senate Legal Counsel to appear as amicus curiae in the 
  name of the Senate in Senator Robert C. Byrd, et al. v. Franklin D. 
                             Raines, et al.

Whereas, in the case of Senator Robert C. Byrd, et al. v. Franklin D. Raines, et 
        al., C.A. No. 97-0001, pending in the United States District Court for 
        the District of Columbia, the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto 
        Act (Public Law 104-130; 110 Stat. 1200), has been placed in issue;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(c), 706(a), and 713(a) of the Ethics in 
        Government Act of 1978 (2 U.S.C. 288b(c), 288e(a), 288l(a)), the Senate 
        may direct its counsel to appear as amicus curiae in the name of the 
        Senate in any legal action in which the powers and responsibilities of 
        Congress under the Constitution are placed in issue: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to appear as 
amicus curiae on behalf of the Senate in the case of Senator Robert C. 
Byrd et al. v. Franklin D. Raines, et al., to defend the 
constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 51497.

Suit 4531.

#### United *States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*

Abstract 50456 affirmed November 4, 1946. C. A. D. 351.
Befoee Judge Donlon,

February 15, 1967

No. R67/37.

#### Red Line Commercial Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

reappraisement R60/15807 (San Juan, P.R.).

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *International*Packers, *Limited*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 636, Reap. Dec. 11147) and *International*Packers, *Limited*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 472, Reap. Dec. 10696), the court found and held that export value, as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the canned meat exported from Argentina, during the period January 1, 1959, through December 31, 1959, and that such values per dozen tins, net packed, are the respective values shown as plaintiff’s claimed values on schedule “B,” for the respective products and sizes of container described on the invoice and as stated in the entry and recited in said schedule “B,” during those periods which correspond to the time of exportation of the canned meat covered by this appeal for reappraisement, said schedule “B,” being attached to and made a part of the decision.