alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD B. MELBYE, AKA Brent

Melbye,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ACCELERATED PAYMENT

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware

corporation,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-57220

D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02040-IEG-JMA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Irma E. Gonzalez, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 5, 2015

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, W. FLETCHER, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Accelerated Payment Technologies (“APT”) appeals the district court’s

denial of its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. Reviewing the

district court’s denial of APT’s motion de novo and the jury’s verdict for

FILED

MAR 06 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
substantial evidence, see EEOC v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951, 961

(9th Cir. 2009), we affirm.

The jury’s finding that APT breached an oral or implied-in-fact contract

between Richard Melbye and Geoffrey Knapp for post-termination residual

commissions is supported by substantial evidence. APT argues that the employee

handbook was incorporated into the at-will employment agreement, and that the

handbook precludes post-termination commissions. We are unpersuaded. The

handbook was not incorporated into the employment agreement. But even if it

were, the handbook and the employment agreement did not constitute a fully

integrated contract because the handbook states that “[i]t does not contain the

complete terms or conditions of any of the company’s current benefit plans and

policies.” The jury could interpret the effect of the handbook and weigh extrinsic

evidence of the parties’ intent. See City of Hope Nat’l Med. Ctr. v. Genentech,

Inc., 43 Cal. 4th 375, 395 (2008) (“[W]hen, as here, ascertaining the intent of the

parties at the time the contract was executed depends on the credibility of extrinsic

evidence, that credibility determination and the interpretation of the contract are

questions of fact that may properly be resolved by the jury.”). And the record

contains ample evidence—including testimony of both Melbye and Knapp—that

2
the handbook did not preclude the post-termination residual commissions to which

they had agreed.

Nor did the Change of Control Agreement supersede the post-termination

commissions contract. The Change of Control Agreement states that it does not

“prevent or limit” Melbye’s “continuing or future participation in any benefit,

bonus, incentive or other plan or program provided by the Corporation.” And,

again, the record contains ample evidence that Melbye and Knapp did not intend

any conflict between the Change of Control Agreement and their post-termination

commissions contract.

AFFIRMED.

3
#### In the Matter of the Petition of Frederic Bowne.

Order reversed and assessment reduced to $6.500. Opinion by

Cullen, J.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BENITO ZARAGOZA-TINOCO,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-70905

Agency No. A206-410-295

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 16, 2016**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Benito Zaragoza-Tinoco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. 

We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

FILED

AUG 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that ZaragozaTinoco failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying

relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). 

In his opening brief, Zaragoza-Tinoco fails to address, and therefore has

waived any challenge to, the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand. See Rizk v.

Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening

brief are waived). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

2 15-70905
No. 199, Misc.

#### Gilbert *v.*Illinois.

Supreme Court of Illinois. Certiorari denied.
Order entered February 10, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00795
- CV
IN RE THE COMMITMENT OF WILLIARD JOEL ROBINSON On Appeal from the Criminal District Cou rt No. 6

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV
- 2070008

O RDER Before the Court is the State’s February 8, 2022 first unopposed motion for extension of time to file its brief

. The brief, however, has since been timely filed. Accordingly, we DENY the motion as moot.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
From: dihagni@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:49:30 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Diane Hagni

Rolla, MO 65401
2B AG IETA Page 1 of |

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION / 26 (DIU ul SEP 0 2 eof

PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS
BRANCH

|As of: September 02, 2011
Received: August 19, 2011
Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION _ Posted: September 02, 2011

Tracking No. 80¢e55e3
‘Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0160
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Unknown dh Submitter Information

Address: 90067-5621
Submitter's Representative: NARAL Pro-Choice America

General Comment

I strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth control without a
copay, CMS-9992-IFC2, Thank you for this important improvement to women's health care.

I also want you to know that I am concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to
opt out of the requirements. All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless
of where they work.

This policy finally should make near-universal access to birth control
areality for all women who use it.

Improving women's access to birth control is positive in so many ways.
A woman who can plan when to have a family is able to participate in
society more fully. Allowing women to space their pregnancies
contributes to healthy childbearing. And ultimately, fewer unintended
pregnancies can reduce the need for abortion.

Thank you for following science-based recommendations and making
women's health a priority.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000... 9/2/2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6516

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY CURTIS BULLOCK, a/k/a Dirty,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:11-cr-00416-TLW-3; 4:15-cv-04212-TLW)

Submitted: May 16, 2016 Decided: June 10, 2016

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Curtis Bullock, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Curtis Bullock seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Bullock has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         15,617
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         148,360
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               19,585
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    56,460
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         56,460
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           56,460
<LOANS>                                        146,271
<ALLOWANCE>                                    2,524
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 245,946
<DEPOSITS>                                     218,910
<SHORT-TERM>                                   775
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            5,122
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       13
<OTHER-SE>                                     21,126
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 245,946
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                14,004
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              3,580
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               548
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               18,132
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             5,094
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,245
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          12,887
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  24
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (11)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                14,722
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                924
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   924
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .73
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 6.11
<LOANS-NON>                                    2,670
<LOANS-PAST>                                   0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                6,008
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               2,707
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  761
<RECOVERIES>                                   221
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              2,524
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           2,524
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        1,644
        

</TABLE>
### SERVE D MA Y 5,201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C -•^~,T--l|'\l, !

I N TH E MATTERO F 

### RAYMON D H . FESSLE R FA A DOCKE T NO . CP10WP000 2 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S No . FAA-2010-002 0 

### AMENDE D ORDE R O N VENU E Th e partie s hav e filedcros s pleading s o n Venue . Considerin g th e natur e an dexten t o f witnes s testimony , th e cas e wil l b e bifurcated . WHEREFORE , th e submission s havin g bee n rea dan dconsidere di t b e an di s hereb y ORDERE D a s follows : 1 . Witnesse s for

bothpartie s - excludin g Responden t - wil l appear

an d testif y at ahearin g i n Lo s Angeles , CA. ; 2 . Responden t

wil l b e give n th e opportunity t o presen t oral testimon y at

a hearin g i n Pocatell o o r

Boise , ID . dependin g o n th e availability o f court facilities ; 3 . Th e dat e for

th e takin g o f

Respondent' s testimon y wil l occu r after th e othe r witnesse s hav e presente dthei r testimony ; 3 . I f necessary , after

Respondent' s testimony , th e partie s wil l b e allowe dt o presen t ftirther testimon y at

atim e an dplac e t o b e determined ; an d 4 . Responden t

wil l b e require dt o b e presen t at th e hearin g t o presen t testimony .

U.S . Administrativ e La w Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No . CP06WP001 2 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Hearin g Docke t Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Att : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Roo m2014 '

ON E COP Y Thoma s Franci s Fessle r 90 0 Gainsboroug hDriv e Lagun aBeach , C A 9265 1 Lierr e Greene , Attorne y Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , AWP- 7 Western-Pacifi c Regio n Federal Aviatio n Administratio n P.O . Bo x 9200 7 Lo s Angeles, C A 90009-200 7 TEL : (310)725-711 7 FAX : (310)725-681 6 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwi n Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 Roo m541 1 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 40 0 Sevent

hStreet , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorne y (202 ) 366-2139 ; Lega l Assistan t (202 ) 366-512 1 FAX : (202)366-753 6

' Service was b

y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the followin g address : Hearing Docket , Federa

l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S . W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building - Roo

m 2014 , Washington , DC 20591 , Att : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .
#### Morris J. Meyer, Appellant, v. Henry S. Rasquin, Respondent.

Order reversed and motion denied, without costB. Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
No. 103.

#### Johnson *v.*Texas.

*T. K. Irwin, Jr.*for petitioner.

*Will Wilson,*Attorney General of Texas, and *Sam R. Wilson, Linward Shivers*and *Charles R. Lind,*Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.
800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591

January 22, 2013

Mr. Richard D. Blosser

3037 Lakeview Terrace
Fullerton, C A 92835

Dear Mr. Blosser :

This is in response to your November 3, 2008 letter sent to the public docket (No.

FAA

- 2008

- 1212 ) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA ) to initiate rulemaking to repeal certain requirements relating to the operation of light

- sport aircraft by persons exercising the privileges of a sport pilot

. Specifically, t he petition for rulemaking requested the FAA repeal the requirements of 14 CFR § 61.303 (b)(2)

.

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73 , the FAA must use the following criteria when making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for rulemaking:

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you ra ise;

2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and

3) The resources we have available to address these issues.

Medical certification standards have been established by the FAA in accordance with its statutory mandate to prescribe regulations and minimum standards the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. Section 61.303 has been promulgated in accordance with this authority and does not require an individual to make any self

incriminating statement for the purpose of operating a light

- sport aircraft. The regulation establishes minimum medical certification requirement s for the operation of light

- sport
aircraft by p erson s exercising the privileges of a sport pilot

.

The FAA has a priority list for rulemaking that addresses man y issues that are crucial to the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public. The FAA must prioritize its limited rulemaking resources so as to deliver the most value to the aviation system as a whole. After reviewing your request, we have determined that the issue you raise is not an immediate safety concern and would not provide a level of safety equivalent to that2 provided by the regulation

. We also find that granting the request woul d not be in the public interest.

For the reasons abov e, we deny your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen Director, Flight Standards Service
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63115-63116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19902]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group; 
NHLBI Single-Site and Pilot Clinical Trials Study Section.
    Date: October 25-26, 2023.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military 
Road NW, Washington, DC 20015.

[[Page 63116]]

    Contact Person: YingYing Li-Smerin, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and 
Blood Institute, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 207-P, Bethesda, MD 
20892-7924, 301-827-7942, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c5a9acb6a8a0b7acab85abada9a7acebabacadeba2aab3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="513d38223c3423383f113f393d33387f3f38397f363e27">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 11, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-19902 Filed 9-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.2

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 Quarterly Report of Comfort Systems USA, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William George, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Date: May 3, 2011

/s/ WILLIAM GEORGE William George Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


---

---



QuickLinks
#### Annie Dawson, Respondent, *v.*The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant.

*Dawson*v. *Brooklyn Heights B. B. Co.,*141 App. Div. 919, affirmed.

(Argued January 27, 1913;

decided February 11, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 22, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant.

*723
      *J. M. Carpenter, D. A. Marsh*and *George D. Yeomans*for appellant.

*Ralph G. Barclay*and *Robert Stewart*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Chase, Collin, Cuddeback and Miller, JJ.