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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The court has an independent obligation to determine whether removal jurisdiction exists.

See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004 (“We are obligated to

consider sua sponte whether we have subject matter jurisdiction.”).

ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED COLLECTION SERVICE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD AND BEVERLY

DONALDSON,

Defendants,

v.

REGENCE BLUESHIELD,

Third-Party Defendant.

CASE NO. C06-545JLR

ORDER 

The court is in receipt of a notice of removal filed by Third-Party Defendant

Regence BlueShield (“Regence”) (Dkt. # 1). On its own motion,1

 the court REMANDS

this action to King County District Court, East Division, for the reasons stated below.

The court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 

Although the Ninth Circuit has yet to definitively rule on the issue of whether a thirdCase 2:06-cv-00545-JLR Document 4 Filed 05/09/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER – 2

party defendant may remove to federal court, the district courts within this circuit that

have considered the question have definitively answered in the negative. HVAC Sales,

Inc. v. Zurich Amer. Ins. Group, No. 04-03615, 2005 WL 2216950, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July

25, 2005) (third-party defendants may not exercise right of removal); Ribelin Lowell &

Co. v. Shipowners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass’n, 365 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1064 (D. Alaska

2005) (same); Schmidt v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Marco Polo Condo., 780 F.

Supp. 699, 702 (D. Haw. 1991) (same); Saeilo Mach., Inc. v. Hirdes Freight, Ltd., No.

00-00777, 2000 WL 1205338, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. March 8, 2000) (same). Citing the

requirement that courts must strictly construe removal statutes, other federal courts have

similarly declined to read the right of removal to extend to third-party defendants. See,

e.g., First Nat’l Bank of Pulaski v. Curry, 301 F.3d 456, 463-64 (6th Cir. 2002); Knight v.

Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 543 F. Supp. 915, 917 (E.D.N.Y.1982). 

The court adopts the rationale of the above-cited authority and holds that Regence,

as a Third-Party Defendant, may not remove to federal court because it is not a

“defendant” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Accordingly, the court REMANDS

this action to King County District Court, East Division.

Dated this 9th day of May, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00545-JLR Document 4 Filed 05/09/06 Page 2 of 2
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

11 April 2005

(2005/C 88/02)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CHRISTOPHER MCINTYRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAN CLUZEL, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5799RJB

ORDER DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

The Court, having reviewed the report and recommendation, petitioner’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis and the remaining record, hereby finds and ORDERS:

(1) the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is approved and adopted;

(2) petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.

(3) petitioner shall pay the required filing fee ($250.00) to the Clerk of the Court within 30 days

of the date of this Order, otherwise this action will be dismissed.

(4) the Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner and any other party that has

appeared in this action.

DATED this 10th day of April, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05799-RJB Document 5 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 1

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONOHUE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JAMES BYRD,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR05-5900

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

DATE 

Upon the stipulation of the parties to continue the trial date in the abovecaptioned case, the Court finds that such a continuance would serve the ends of justice

and outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant; therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date be continued to April 24, 2006. 

The resulting period of delay from March 27, 2006, to April 24, 2006, is hereby

excluded for speedy trial purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B).

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2006.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge

Presented By:

/s/________________________________ /s/_____________________________

Russell V. Leonard Captain Glen Templeton 

Attorney for Defendant Special Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-cr-05900-JKA Document 8 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 62880.

#### International Expediters, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 160709-K/2791,etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C.C.P.A. 15, C.A.D. 458), the items of merchandise marked with the letter “A” were held dutiable as follows: (a) As to the items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption prior to May 28, 1950, at 20 percent under paragraph 1547(a) ; and (b) as to items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on and after May 28, 1950, at 10 percent under said paragraph 1547(a), as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52476).
1The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1509

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Joel Rio-Baena, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: January 4, 2001

 Filed: January 10, 2001

___________

Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joel Rio-Baena pleaded guilty to transporting illegal aliens within the United

States for commercial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (B)(i).

At sentencing, the district court1 enhanced his base offense level, pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.1(b)(5), for having recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily

injury to the illegal aliens he transported. On appeal, Rio-Baena challenges the

enhancement, arguing that the conditions in the van which he used to transport the
-2-

aliens were not sufficiently egregious to warrant the enhancement, and that he should

not be held responsible for those conditions because he was an illegal alien himself,

who only drove the van to pay the fee demanded by the organizers for the trip. We

reject Rio-Baena’s arguments and affirm.

While Rio-Baena may have been driving the van only to pay the fee for his trip,

the fact remains that he knowingly agreed to drive 21 illegal aliens, 8 of them children,

from Phoenix, Arizona, to Chicago, Illinois, crowded into the back of a cargo van

without seats or seatbelts. Based on these facts, we cannot say that the district court

clearly erred in assessing the challenged enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1,

comment. (n.6); United States v. Plumley, 207 F.3d 1086, 1090 (8th Cir. 2000)

(reviewing district court’s factual findings for clear error); United States v. HernandezGuardado, 228 F.3d 1017, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 2L1.1(b)(5) enhancements

upheld where defendants had driven vans with illegal aliens not strapped into seats with

seatbelts, but lying unrestrained on floorboards and across seats); United States v. Moe,

65 F.3d 245, 250 (2d Cir. 1995) (finding defendant responsible for conditions on boat

carrying approximately 300 illegal aliens, despite his contention that land-based

defendants were responsible for number of passengers and conditions on boat;

defendant voluntarily chose to be captain of boat, with full knowledge of conditions on

boat from outset of voyage).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 59843.

#### I. Freeman & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 195098-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 52026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21157]

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

[Public Notice: 2012-0447]

Application for Final Commitment for a Long-term Loan or 
Financial Guarantee in Excess of $100 million

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Notice of 25-day comment period regarding an application for 
final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in excess 
of $100 million.

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

Reason for Notice

    This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with Section 
3(c)(10) of the Charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United States 
(``Ex-Im Bank''), that Ex-Im Bank has received an application for final 
commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in excess of 
$100 million (as calculated in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the 
Charter).
    Comments received within the comment period specified below will be 
presented to the Ex-Im Bank Board of Directors prior to final action on 
this Transaction.
    Reference: AP086944XX.

Purpose and Use

    Brief description of the purpose of the transaction:
    To support the export of commercial aircraft to Ireland.
    Brief non-proprietary description of the anticipated use of the 
items being exported:
    To be sub-leased to SpiceJet for short- and medium-haul passenger 
air service in India and between India and regional destinations.
    To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is reasonably aware, the item(s) 
being exported are not expected to produce exports or provide services 
in competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services 
by a United States industry.

Parties

    Principal Supplier: The Boeing Company.
    Obligor: AWAS Aviation Trading Limited.
    Guarantor(s): N/A.
    Description of Items Being Exported: Boeing 737 aircraft.
    Information on Decision: Information on the final decision for this 
transaction will be available in the ``Summary Minutes of Meetings of 
Board of Directors'' on http://www.exim.gov/articles.cfm/board%20minute.
    Confidential Information: Please note that this notice does not 
include confidential or proprietary business information; information 
which, if disclosed, would violate the Trade Secrets Act; or 
information which would jeopardize jobs in the United States by 
supplying information that competitors could use to compete with 
companies in the United States.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 24, 2012 to be 
assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction 
by the Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted through WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV.

Kathryn Hoff-Patrinos,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-21157 Filed 8-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
No. 61609.

#### Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 305978-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
| FIRST: | The name of this corporation shall be: |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | HURLEY EXPLORATION INC.                |   |

SECOND: Its registered office in the State of Delaware is to be located at 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle and its registered agent at such is CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY.
| THIRD: The purpose or purposes of the corporation shall be: |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|

 
|   | To engage in any lawful act or activity for which corporations may be organized under the General Corporation Law of Delaware. |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

FOURTH: The total number of shares of stock which this corporation is authorized to issue is One Hundred Million (100,000,000) shares of common stock with a par value of $.001.
| FIFTH: The name and address of the incorporator is as follows:

  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
|                                                                                      | Lynn CanneLongo2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400Wilmington, Delaware 19808 |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| SIXTH: The Board of Directors shall have the power to adopt, amend or repeal the by-laws. |
|                                                                                      |                                                                      |   |   |   |

SEVENTH: No director shall be personally liable to the Corporation or its stockholders for monetary damages for any breach of fiduciary duty by such director as a director. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, a director shall be liable to the extent provided by applicable law, (i) for breach of the director’s duty of loyalty to the Corporation or its stockholders, (ii) for acts or omissions not in good faith or which involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law, (iii) pursuant to Section 174 of the Delaware General Corporation Law or (iv) for any transaction from which the director derived an improper personal benefit. No amendment to or repeal of this Article Seventh shall apply to or have any effect on the liability or alleged liability of any director of the Corporation for or with respect to any acts or omissions of such director occurring prior to such amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the incorporator herein before named, has executed signed and acknowledged this certificate of incorporation this 12th day of November, AD. 2004.

 */s/Lynn CanneLongo*

Lynn CanneLongo, Incorporator

 

 

 

 

 

----
Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR-MJB Document 1-1 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 1 of 16
 Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 6 Filed 01/25/06 Page 1 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR-MJB Document 1-1 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 2 of 16


Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 6 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR-MJB Document 1-1 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 3 of 16
 Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 6 Filed 01/25/06 Page 3 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR-MJB Document 1-1 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 4 of 16
 Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 6 Filed 01/25/06 Page 4 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR-MJB Document 1-1 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 5 of 16
 Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 6 Filed 01/25/06 Page 5 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR-MJB Document 1-1 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 6 of 16


Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 6 Filed 01/25/06 Page 6 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR-MJB Document 1-1 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 7 of 16


Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 6 Filed 01/25/06 Page 7 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR-MJB Document 1-1 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 8 of 16
 Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 6 Filed 01/25/06 Page 8 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR-MJB Document 1-1 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 9 of 16
 Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 6 Filed 01/25/06 Page 9 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR-MJB Document 1-1 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 10 of 16
 Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 6 Filed 01/25/06 Page 10 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR-MJB Document 1-1 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 11 of 16


Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 6 Filed 01/25/06 Page 11 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR-MJB Document 1-1 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 12 of 16
 Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 6 Filed 01/25/06 Page 12 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR-MJB Document 1-1 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 13 of 16
 Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 6 Filed 01/25/06 Page 13 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR-MJB Document 1-1 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 14 of 16
 Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 6 Filed 01/25/06 Page 14 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR-MJB Document 1-1 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 15 of 16


Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 6 Filed 01/25/06 Page 15 of 16
Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR-MJB Document 1-1 Filed 12/13/2005 Page 16 of 16
 Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 6 Filed 01/25/06 Page 16 of 16
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT FR ANKLIN M ANR IQUE C OR TEZ C HAVEZ, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 14-70111 Age n c y No. A070-965-637 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 24, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, FER NANDEZ, a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. Franklin M anrique C o rte z C have z , a native and c i tiz e n of El Sa lva d o r, pe titions pro se

for re vie w of the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igrat ion judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his motion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e d ings c o nduc te d in a bse ntia . W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 8 U.S.C .



# FIL ED MAR 02 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 1252. W e re vie wfor a buse of disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to re ope n a

nd re vie w de novo que stions of la w. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e d e ny the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in de ny ing a s untim e ly C orte z C have z ’ s m otion to re ope n, whe re it wa s file d a pproxim at e ly

sixte e n y e ars a fte r issua nc e of his fina l orde r of re m ova l, a nd C orte z C have z doe s not c ha lle nge the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm i n ation tha t he re c e ive d prope r notic e of the he aring. S e e 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (b)(5)(C ); 8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). In addition, he fa ile d to e sta blish that he wa rrante d e quita

b le tolling of the

filing de a dline , whe re he did not m e e t the proc e d ura l re quire m e nts se t

forth in Matte r of Lozada , 19 I. & N. De c . 637 (B IA 1988), Singh v . Holde r , 658 F.3d 879, 884 (9th C ir. 2011), a nd the a lle ge d ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e is not plain on thefa c e of the re c ord, se e Re y e s v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 592, 597-98 (9th C ir. 2004). Fina lly , the a ge n c y

did not viola

te due proc e ss in de ny ing C orte z C have z ’ s m otion, be c a

use he fa ile d to show pre

judic e . Se e Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 4 - 7 0 1 1 1 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Chambers of

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge

700 Stewart Street

U.S. Courthouse - Suite 12132 

Seattle, WA 98101

August 15, 2006

Diana Zoe Ellis

1601 S Perry ST

Spokane WA 99203

Re: Diana Zoe Ellis v. R. James Nicholson, et al.; (No: C06-0923-RSM)

Dear Ms. Ellis:

Enclosed is a copy of my Report and Recommendation, proposed order and proposed

judgment in the above-captioned case. The originals have been filed electronically with the Clerk.

This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order. Any notice of appeal should not be

filed until the District Judge enters judgment in this case.

Objections to the recommendation should be filed with the Clerk and served upon all parties

to this suit within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter. Failure to file objections within the

specified time waives the right to appeal any order by the District Court adopting this report and

recommendation. In accordance with our local rules, you should note your objections for

consideration on the Judge's motion calendar for the third Friday after they are filed. If no timely

objections are filed, the matter will be ready for consideration by the District Judge on September 1,

2006.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

enclosures

cc: Hon. Ricardo S. Martinez

Case 2:06-cv-00923-RSM Document 4-2 Filed 08/15/06 Page 1 of 1
```

                                                                 Exhibit 10

                            MATERIAL CONTRACTS

The following  material  contracts of Navistar Financial 2005-A Owner Trust
are incorporated herein by reference:

10.01 Purchase   Agreement   dated  as  of  July  27,  2005,   between  the
      Corporation and Navistar  Financial Retail  Receivables  Corporation,
      as Purchaser,  with respect to Navistar Financial 2005-A Owner Trust,
      as  Issuer.  Filed  as  Exhibit  99.1 to  Navistar  Financial  Retail
      Receivables  Corporation Owner Trust 2005-A's Form 8-K dated July 27,
      2005.  Commission File No. 333-115716-01.

10.02 Pooling  Agreement  dated as of July 27, 2005 among the  Corporation,
      as Servicer,  and Navistar Financial Retail Receivables  Corporation,
      as Seller,  and Navistar  Financial  2005-A  Owner Trust,  as Issuer.
      Filed  as  Exhibit  4.1  to  Navistar  Financial  Retail  Receivables
      Corporation  Owner  Trust  2005-A  Form  8-K  dated  July  27,  2005.
      Commission File No.  333-115716-01.

10.03 Servicing   Agreement   dated  as  of  July  27,   2005,   among  the
      Corporation,  as Servicer and Navistar  Financial Retail  Receivables
      Corporation,  as Seller,  and Navistar  Financial 2005-A Owner Trust,
      as  Issuer.  Filed  as  Exhibit  99.3 to  Navistar  Financial  Retail
      Receivables  Corporation Owner Trust 2005-A's Form 8-K dated July 27.
      2005.   Commission File No. 333-115716-01.

10.04 Trust  Agreement  dated  as  of  July  27,  2005,   between  Navistar
      Financial Retail  Receivables  Corporation,  as Seller, and the Chase
      Manhattan Bank USA,  National  Association,  as Owner  Trustee,  with
      respect  to  Navistar   Financial   2005-A  Owner  Trust.   Filed  as
      Exhibit  4.3 to Navistar  Financial  Retail  Receivables  Corporation
      Owner Trust  2005-A's Form 8-K dated July 27, 2005.  Commission  File
      No.  333-115716-01.

10.05 Indenture  dated  as of July 27,  2005,  between  Navistar  Financial
      2005-A Owner Trust and The Bank of New York,  as  Indenture  Trustee,
      with  respect to Navistar  Financial  2005-A  Owner  Trust.  Filed as
      Exhibit  4.2 to Navistar  Financial  Retail  Receivables  Corporation
      Owner Trust  2005-A's Form 8-K dated July 27, 2005.  Commission  File
      No. 333-115716-01.
```