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

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.6.5

                             FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE

                       REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT AGREEMENT

This FIFTH AMENDMENT ("Amendment") is dated as of May 1, 2004, by and between
WFS FINANCIAL INC, a California corporation (the "Borrower"), and WESTERN
FINANCIAL BANK, a federally-chartered savings bank (the "Bank"), and amends the
REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") entered into by the parties on
June 15, 1999, as amended, pursuant to the transfer of certain assets of the
Bank to the Borrower.

                                    RECITALS

A.    The Agreement is being amended as follows:

                                    AGREEMENT

      In consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, and in reliance
upon the recitals set forth above, the parties agree as follows:

      1.    CERTAIN DEFINITIONS

            The definition of "COLLATERAL" is hereby amended as follows:

            "COLLATERAL" shall mean any assets and properties, if any, used from
            time to time pursuant to any Loan Documents to secure all or a
            portion of the Obligations.

      2.    Section 2.4.2 of the Agreement is restated in its entirety as
            follows:

            PAYMENTS OF INTEREST. Interest shall be due and payable (i) on the
            tenth calendar day of each month (or if such day is not a Business
            Day, on the next Business Day thereafter) for the preceding month,
            and (ii) at maturity (by acceleration or otherwise). In the event
            that the Borrower fails to pay Interest when due, the Bank may, in
            its sole discretion, advance such amount for the Borrower's account,
            which amount shall be deemed an Advance hereunder.

      3.    Except as specifically amended herein, all terms of the Agreement
            and terms as previously amended by the First, Second, Third and
            Fourth amendments to the Agreement shall remain in full force and
            effect.

      4.    Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings set
            forth in the Agreement.

Wherefore, the undersigned have executed this Amendment on the date set forth
below to be effective as of the date first set forth above.

WFS FINANCIAL INC                            WESTERN FINANCIAL BANK

_________________________________            _________________________________
Mark Olson, Senior Vice President            Lee A. Whatcott,
                                             Senior Executive Vice President,
                                             Chief Financial Officer and
                                             Chief Operating Officer
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Auto Industry Forum Petition for Reconsideration
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.24.1

                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

                       REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT AGREEMENT

This FIRST AMENDMENT ("Amendment") is dated as of November 7, 2002, by and
between WFS RECEIVABLES CORPORTION 3, a California corporation (the "Borrower"),
and WESTERN FINANCIAL BANK a federal savings bank (the "Bank"), and amends the
REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") entered into by the parties on
August 8, 2002 with reference to the following:

                                    RECITALS

A.      The Agreement is being amended as follows:

                                    AGREEMENT

        In consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, and in
reliance upon the recitals set forth above, the parties agree as follows:

        1.      CERTAIN DEFINITIONS

                The definition of "BORROWING CERTIFICATE" is hereby added to the
                Agreement and shall read as follows:

                "BORROWING CERTIFICATE" shall mean a borrowing request executed
                by the Borrower in substantially the form attached hereto as
                Exhibit A or such other form as may be acceptable to the Bank in
                its sole and absolute discretion.

        2.      The definition of "COMMITMENT AMOUNT" shall mean $75,000,000.

        3.      A new Section 4.2 will be added to the Agreement:

                4.2     BORROWING CERTIFICATE. The Borrower shall have timely
                        delivered to the Bank, in accordance with Section 2.2
                        hereof, a Borrowing Certificate duly completed and
                        executed by the Borrower.

        4.      The original sections 4.2 through 4.5 shall be deemed renumbered
                4.3 through 4.6.

        5.      Except as specifically amended herein, all terms of the
                Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

        6.      Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings set
                forth in the Agreement.



<PAGE>

Wherefore, the undersigned have executed this Amendment on the date set forth
below to be effective as of the date first set forth above.


WFS RECEIVABLES CORPORATION 3            WESTERN FINANCIAL BANK


John Coluccio, President                 Lee A. Whatcott,
                                         Senior Executive Vice President,
                                         Chief Financial Officer and
                                         Chief Operating Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7345 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7345

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to modify the rules with 
  respect to the consideration in the House of Representatives of any 
   resolution providing for an adjournment period of more than three 
  calendar days during the month of July or August until the House of 
Representatives has approved annual appropriation bills, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2024

  Mr. Brecheen (for himself and Mr. Kilmer) introduced the following 
bill; which was referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to 
the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to modify the rules with 
  respect to the consideration in the House of Representatives of any 
   resolution providing for an adjournment period of more than three 
  calendar days during the month of July or August until the House of 
Representatives has approved annual appropriation bills, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Waiving the Rules Disclosure, 
Transparency, and Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. COMPLETION OF HOUSE ACTION ON REGULAR APPROPRIATION BILLS.

    Section 309 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 640) 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``It shall not be in order'' and inserting 
        ``(a) In General--It shall not be in order'';
            (2) by inserting ``or August'' after ``July''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--It shall not be 
in order in the House of Representatives to consider a rule or order 
that waives the application of subsection (a).
    ``(c) Question of Consideration.--As disposition of a point of 
order under subsection (b), the Chair shall put the question of 
consideration with respect to the rule or order, as applicable.
    ``(d) Debate and Intervening Motions.--A question of consideration 
under this section shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member 
initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but 
shall otherwise be decided without intervening motion.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 211.125 Labeling issuance. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 51769 , June 18, 2024.
( a ) Strict control shall be exercised over labeling issued for use in drug product labeling operations.
( b ) Labeling materials issued for a batch shall be carefully examined for identity and conformity to the labeling specified in the master or batch production records.
( c ) Procedures shall be used to reconcile the quantities of labeling issued, used, and returned, and shall require evaluation of discrepancies found between the quantity of drug product finished and the quantity of labeling issued when such discrepancies are outside narrow preset limits based on historical operating data. Such discrepancies shall be investigated in accordance with § 211.192. Labeling reconciliation is waived for cut or roll labeling if a 100-percent examination for correct labeling is performed in accordance with § 211.122(g)(2). Labeling reconciliation is also waived for 360° wraparound labels on portable cryogenic medical gas containers.
( d ) All excess labeling bearing lot or control numbers shall be destroyed.
( e ) Returned labeling shall be maintained and stored in a manner to prevent mixups and provide proper identification.
( f ) Procedures shall be written describing in sufficient detail the control procedures employed for the issuance of labeling; such written procedures shall be followed.
[43 FR 45077, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 58 FR 41354, Aug. 3, 1993; 81 FR 81697, Nov. 18, 2016]
#### Harry James GUIDRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony A. LAMARQUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-16471.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.*

Decided Oct. 18, 2005.

Harry James Guidry, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

Susan Orton, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: T.G. NELSON, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*539MEMORANDUM **

Harry James Guidry, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his state conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to terminate his pro per status and appoint counsel. We disagree. Because the trial court made a factual finding that appellant’s request was an apparent effort to delay or disrupt the proceedings on the eve of trial, the district court correctly denied this claim. *Cf. Menefield v. Borg,*881 F.2d 696, 700 (9th Cir.1989).

Appellant also contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of assault with a deadly weapon, however, a review of the record indicates that a rational trier of fact could find all the elements of the crime to return a guilty verdict. *See Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

Appellant’s claims that (1) the trial court erred when taking evidence regarding his prior convictions while the jury was still deliberating; (2) the jury instructions given at trial were erroneous; and (3) the trial court erred in allowing appellant’s parole agent to testify are waived because appellant fails to raise them on appeal. *See Mendoza v. Block,*27 F.3d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir.1994) (“Failure to raise an issue on appeal results in waiver of that issue.”).

Appellant’s contentions that (1) the police failed to follow police procedure in investigating the crime scene; and (2) that the trial court erred in limiting appellant’s cross-examination of the witness both fail because appellant does not state a federal claim on which federal habeas relief can be granted. *See Estelle v. McGuire,*502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).

The remainder of appellant’s contentions are unsupported, conclusory allegations that must also be rejected. *See Jones v. Gomez,*66 F.3d 199, 204 (9th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 12, 2019

No. 04-19-00357-CR

Marcus IDROGO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-07-159-CRW

Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s notice of request for reporter’s record and clarification of indigency is 

granted. As noted in this court’s August 1, 2019 order, the reporter’s record is due on August 23, 

2019.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of August, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
###### Editorial Note on Part 312

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 312 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

#### § 312.50 General responsibilities of sponsors.

Sponsors are responsible for selecting qualified investigators, providing them with the information they need to conduct an investigation properly, ensuring proper monitoring of the investigation(s), ensuring that the investigation(s) is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols contained in the IND, maintaining an effective IND with respect to the investigations, and ensuring that FDA and all participating investigators are promptly informed of significant new adverse effects or risks with respect to the drug. Additional specific responsibilities of sponsors are described elsewhere in this part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000813621                
<NAME>                        AMCOL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         4,300
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  90,806
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2,144
<INVENTORY>                                    48,292
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               150,600
<PP&E>                                         288,673
<DEPRECIATION>                                 110,899
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 349,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          52,238
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       213
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   349,701
<SALES>                                        291,843
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               291,843
<CGS>                                          231,431
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  270,103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               197
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             6,309
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                15,628
<INCOME-TAX>                                   5,628
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            9,989
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   9,989
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .51
        




</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7181 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7181

   To require the Secretary of State to submit a report ranking the 
                  organizations of the United Nations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2024

  Mr. Curtis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Secretary of State to submit a report ranking the 
                  organizations of the United Nations.

    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 ``Determining Excessive Funding for 
the United Nations for Dereliction Act''.

SEC. 2. RANKING REPORT.

    The Secretary of State shall submit to Congress a report listing 
each organization of the United Nations, ranked by the manner and 
extent to which, in the determination of the Secretary of State, such 
organization is vital to the interests of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 60959 Summary Calendar

**J. Reyes Luna Esparza,**

Petitioner **,**

versus

**Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,**
Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A212 953 379

Before **King, Higginson,**  and **Willett,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
J. Reyes Luna Esparza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for cancellation of removal.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth C ircuit 

### FILED November 14, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60959 Document: 00516543449 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2022No. 21

- 60959

2 Lu na Esparza argues that the BIA erred in denying his application for cancellation of removal based on the finding that he had failed to show that his son would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship upon petitioner’s removal to Mexico. He furthe r argues that the hardship standard is unconscionable and violates his constitutional right to due process.

T his court lacks jurisdiction to consider Luna Esparza’s challenge to the BIA’s hardship determination. See Patel v. Garland , 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622 (2022) ; Castillo

- Gutierrez v. Garland , 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022) ;
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) . We likewise lack jurisdiction to review Luna Esparza’s related argument that the BIA failed to consider certain relevant factors in its hardship determination. See Sung v. Keisler , 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007)

. Luna Esparza also raises a constitut ional challenge to the hardship
standard. He argues that the “ exceptional and extremely unusual hardship ” requirement is an “unconscionable standard” as applied by the BIA because only applicants who can show that their qualifying relatives suffer from

“s erious physical medical conditions” will be eligible for cancellation of
removal. Luna Esparza contends that t he standard’s high burden violates the
due

- process rights of noncitizens. This court still has jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenge s to the denial of cancellation of removal. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also Patel , 142 S. Ct. at 1623

. Nonetheless, “the failure to receive relief that is purely discretionary in nature does not amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest.” Assaad v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). And cancellation of removal is a form of discretionary
relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b (b)(1).
The petition for review is **DISMISSED** in part and **DENIED** in
part. Case: 21-60959 Document: 00516543449 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2022
Office for Domestic Preparedness 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20531

ODP Information Bulletin 

No. 146 December 22, 2004 

TO All State Administrative Agency Heads 

 All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact 

 All Core City/Core County Points of Contact 

 All State Homeland Security Directors 

FROM: C. Suzanne Mencer 

 Executive Director 

SUBJECT: Allowable Information/Intelligence Analysis Activities Under the Fiscal Year 

2005 Homeland Security Grant Program 

On December 2, 2004, the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) issued the Fiscal Year (FY) 

2005 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) Program Guidelines and Application Kit. The 

program guidelines include information on allowable activities under the Urban Areas Security 

Initiative (UASI) and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP). 

The FY05 HSGP guidance states that grantees may use no more than 25% of the gross amount of 

FY05 UASI and LETPP awards to support select operational activities. Allowable operational 

activities in FY05 for these two programs include a new line item for the hiring of 

contractors/consultants for participation in information/intelligence sharing groups or 

intelligence fusion centers. This operational cost category was added in recognition of the fact 

that many states and local jurisdictions are dedicating significant resources to establishing and 

sustaining fusion centers to facilitate the collection, analysis, and dissemination of homeland 

security information. This allowable operational cost applies to both FY04 and FY05 UASI and 

LETPP funding. 

Homeland security is now considered to be part of the core public safety mission of state, tribal, 

and local governments. As such, grantees may not use ODP funds to hire permanent staff for 

operational activities to perform these responsibilities or to supplant ongoing, routine public 

safety activities of state and local law enforcement.