alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELSA SOLVEIG BILLINGHAM,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC

FACILITIES,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 08-35781

D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00240-TMB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Elsa Solveig Billingham appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in her employment action alleging sex and age discrimination and

retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

FILED

OCT 06 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-35781

Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1123 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Billingham’s

discrimination and retaliation claims because she failed to raise a genuine issue of

material fact as to whether similarly situated employees were treated more

favorably, see id. at 1124 (finding that the plaintiff’s “proposed comparators [we]re

not similarly situated because they were not subject to [a Last Chance

Agreement]”), and as to whether defendant’s reason for terminating her and

classifying her as ineligible for rehire was pretextual, see id. at 1124-25 (affirming

summary judgment where the plaintiff did not raise any genuine issues of material

fact as to whether the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the

challenged employment action was pretextual); Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA, 339

F.3d 792, 801 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming summary judgment on retaliation claim). 

Moreover, Billingham failed to show a causal connection between her

administrative complaints and her termination and ineligibility for rehire. See

Manatt, 339 F.3d at 802.

We do not address issues that Billingham has not raised or argued on appeal. 

See Cook v. Schriro, 538 F.3d 1000, 1014 n.5 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Billingham’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             774                  28,171
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,360                  28,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                       969                     519
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                78,984                  95,450
<PP&E>                                          36,731                  26,082
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,848                   1,667
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 144,721                 296,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,329                  46,077
<BONDS>                                         33,960                   5,967
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           252                     252
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,125                 240,259
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   144,721                 296,539
<SALES>                                        178,922                  53,154
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               178,922                  53,154
<CGS>                                          155,902                  36,626
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  342,960                  49,215
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,174)                   (877)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,290                     444
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (164,154)                   4,372
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,310)                   1,693
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (161,844)                   2,679
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,369                     971
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (160,475)                   3,650
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.36)                    0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (6.36)                    0.20
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

          In connection with the Quarterly Report of First M&F Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hugh S. Potts, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| A.     | The Report fully complies with the requirements of   Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                  |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                     |
| B.     | The information contained in the Report fairly   presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of   operations of the Company. |

| Date: August 9, 2006 |                                 |
|----------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                 | /s/ Hugh S. Potts, Jr.               |
|                 |                                      |
|                 | Hugh S. Potts, Jr.                   |
|                 | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

----
**EXHIBIT
      32**




CERTIFICATIONS
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In
      connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of BPO Management Services, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), the undersigned
      hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Chief
      Financial Officer, respectively, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.  the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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





Dated:
              April 25, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Patrick
              A. DolanPatrick
              A. DolanChief
              Executive Officer


Dated:
                April 25, 2007
              By:
              /s/ Donald
                W.
                RutherfordDonald
                W. RutherfordChief
                Financial Officer


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
Exhibit 32B

                            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 AutoInfo,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  (SEC) on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, William
Wunderlich,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

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

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

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be  retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its staff upon
request.


/s/ William Wunderlich
----------------------
William Wunderlich
Chief Financial Officer
November 11, 2005


                                       21
#### DEN ON DEMISE OF N. G. HOWELL & AL. *vs.*HARRY HOWELL & AL.

The -estate of a tenant at will is determined by a demand of possession by the owner, and also by his own conveyance in fee.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Haywood County, at the Spring Term 1846, his Honor Judge Pearson presiding.

*N. W. Woodfm,*and *Francis,*for the plaintiffs.

*Gaither,*and *Edney,*for the defendants.

Ruffin, C. J.

The lessors of the plaintiif are the same persons, who were the plaintiffs, in the action of trover, decided at this term, of *Howell*v. *Howell and Battle.*And the same question arose in this case, as in that, as to the construction of the deeds of the father to the sons, and of the obligation of the latter to the former, and the same instruction was given to the jury, who found accordingly, and the plaintiff appealed.

It is true, that under the-statute of uses, an estate in the land might be made to arise to the sons, at the death of the father; and if it had been so expressed in the deed made by the father, the plaintiffs could *not recover.*But it is not so expressed, nor can the estate for life to the father be raised at all, without connecting the. deed and obligation together. Now, whether that ought to be done, or not, depends upon the necessity for doing so in order to effectuate the intention, or upon its effect in defeating the grant or a part of it. In a case between the same parties this Court held, that these instruments could not be incorporated, because that would annul the grant of the chattels conveyed by Howell to his sons. As that is decisive of the intention of the parties, that the instruments should not be embodied, but that each should operate *per se,*it follows, that the legal title to the land is in the lessors of the plaintiff\and that he ought to recover.

*499A further objection was raised, in the argument here against the action; which is, that the. father became, at least, the tenant at will of his sons, and that they ought to have given reasonable notice, before this suit. The answer is, that merely as a tenant at- will, his right was determined by both the demand of'ppssession by the lessors of the plaintiff and also by his own conveyance in fee before the action brought.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed arid *venire de novo.*
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

To the Board of Directors 

Braintech, Inc. 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (No. 333-126190, 333-64872, 333-92253, 333-149538 and 333-149536) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No. 333-142277) on Form S-B2 of Braintech, Inc. of our report dated February 29, 2008, with respect to theconsolidated balance sheets of Braintech, Inc. as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ deficit and cash flows for the years then ended. Our report dated February 29, 2008,contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has incurred recurring losses from operations which raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going-concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include anyadjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty. 

/s/ SmytheRatcliffe 

Chartered Accountants 

Vancouver, Canada 

March 27, 2008
#### First National Bank of Racine, Respondent, vs. Schellenberg, Appellant.

*October 29*—

November *15, 1910.*

*Guaranty: Pleading.*

The complaint herein is *held*to state a good cause *of*action upon a contract of guaranty.

*648Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Marathon county: A. H. Reid, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Action to recover on guaranty.

The pleader stated facts appropriate to a good cause of action to recover on a contract of guaranty, if the following shows a good contract of that character:

For the purpose of enabling the United States Washing Machine Company, a corporation doing business in this state, to obtain credit at plaintiff's bank, defendant with other stockholders of such corporation, September 30, 1903, in writing-expressing a consideration, waiving notice of acceptance of the guaranty by plaintiff or of indebtedness incurred on the faith thereof by said corporation to plaintiff during the life of the guaranty, and signed by defendant, jointly and severally guaranteed the prompt payment at maturity or thereafter of any and all indebtedness either as principal or in-dorser, due on that day or which might thereafter become due from said corporation to the plaintiff, not exceeding $1,500, with interest at the rate of seven per cent, per annum from maturity until paid, and to pay all costs and expenses incurred in collecting such indebtedness, said guaranty to be continuing, subject only to termination by a written notice received by plaintiff to that effect and satisfaction of all liability thereunder existing at the date of such reception. In reliance on such guaranty plaintiff extended credit to said corporation from time to time, taking its notes on account thereof and allowing renewals of the same, so that, June 9, 1909, such corporation was indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $2,000, for which it then took, relying upon the guaranty, a four months’ six per cent, note of such corporation, payable October 9, 1909. Said note became due before the commencement of this action, but no part thereof has been paid though demand therefor has been made.

. The defendant demurred to the complaint for insufficiency. The demurrer was overruled and defendant appealed.

*649Eor the appellant the cause was submitted on the briefs of *Regner & Ringle.*

Eor the respondent there was a brief by *Hand & Hand,*and oral argument by *B. B. Hand.*

MaRshaul, J.

The foregoing-brief statement of the contents of the complaint shows so clearly, by bare inspection* that the facts set forth constitute a good cause of action, it does not seem advisable to do more, in disposing of the appeal, than to state such conclusion and pronounce the proper judgment.

*By the Court.*— The order is affirmed.
NRO Thanks Congressional Commissioners 

November 15, 2000 

NRO Director Mr. Keith Hall formally thanked the members of the National Commission for the 

Review of the National Reconnaissance Office for their hard work and believes the report will

bolster the organization's ability to provide the nation with the world's best global 

reconnaissance. 

"I thank the commission members for all their hard work over the past year," said Mr. Keith 

Hall, NRO Director, who received the commission's final report today. "They have taken a very 

hard look at our organization, collecting information from across industry and the government, 

and we look forward to working through their recommendations." 

The NRO is responsible for designing, building and operating the nation's reconnaissance 

satellites and is celebrating its 40th Anniversary this year. Over those 40 years, the NRO 

succeeded in developing for the United States an unprecedented global capability to conduct 

signals and imagery reconnaissance from space - a capability that remains unmatched by any 

other nation. 

"For the past 40 years, we have been at the forefront of pushing the state of the art in space-based 

reconnaissance capabilities," said Hall. "We need to continue to push that technology envelope to 

make the revolutionary steps necessary to assure this country has the information superiority that 

it will require in the 21st Century. The work of the NRO Commission will help us get there."
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20100 Summary Calendar
ANNETTE LEWIS, Individually and as next friend of and as representative of the estate of Toddrick Deon Lewis, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAULINE IGWE, d/b/a/ Human Services Center, and HARRIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas 4:05-CV-03320
Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff, Annette Lewis, challenges the district court’s order granting summary judgment to defendant in this § 1983 case. The district court agreed with and accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendations, concluding that plaintifffailed to produce summary judgment evidence to allow a fact finder to United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 26, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-20100

2 find a causal link between a custom or policy of Harris County Department of Education (HCDE) and any violation of federal law suffered by plaintiff’s son. Plaintiff’s 21-year- old son Toddrick Lewiswasa special education student attending school at HCDE’s ABC West campus in Houston, Texas. This is a school for mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed students. Toddrick grabbed a meat patty off the plate of another student, placed i t whole in his mouth and began to choke. Several staff members responded by performing the Heimlich maneuver and made other efforts to dislodge the food from Toddrick’s throat but, unfortunately, were unsuccessful, and he died. We affirm the district court’s judgment for the following reasons: 1. We agree with the magistrate judge and district court that appellant has failed to demonstrate a policy, practice, or custom enacted or known to the HCDE board that was causally related to Toddrick’s injury and death. 2. The district court did not err in declining to consider plaintiff’s supplemental evidence that was not tendered tothe magistratejudge before her decision. Appellant never sufficiently explained her delay in obtaining and submitting this evidence. See Freeman v. County of Bexar, 142 F.3d 848 (5th Cir. 1998). Therefore, for these reasons and those set forth in the careful November 2, 2006 Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, we affirm the district court judgment. AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of E*TRADE Financial Corporation of our reports dated February 24, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial statements of E*TRADE Financial
Corporation and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion on the consolidated financial statements and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the adoption of accounting standards: Accounting for Uncertainty in Income
Taxes, as of January 1, 2007; Fair Value Measurement and The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities, on January 1, 2008; and Recognition and Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary
Impairments, on April 1, 2009) and the effectiveness of E*TRADE Financial Corporation and subsidiaries internal control of over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of E*TRADE Financial Corporation for the
year ended December 31, 2009.

Filed on Form S-3:



|                             |  |                                                                                                                                                                                  
|---------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Registration Statement Nos.: |  | 333-104903, 333-41628, 333-124673, 333-129077, 333-130258, 333-136356, 333-150997, 333-156570, 333-158636                                                                        
|                            
|Filed on Form S-4:          
|                             | 
|Registration Statement Nos.: |  | 333-91467, 333-62230, 333-117080, 333-129833                                                                                                                                     
|                            
|Filed on Form S-8:          
|                             | 
|Registration Statement Nos.: |  | 333-12503, 333-52631, 333-62333, 333-72149, 333-35068, 333-35074, 333-37892, 333-44608, 333-44610, 333-54904, 333-56002, 333-113558, 333-91534, 333-125351, 333-81702, 333-159653

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

McLean, Virginia

February 24, 2010
Consent of Independent Auditors


The Board of Directors
CNET, Inc.


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on 
Form S-8 of CNET, Inc. of our report dated January 21, 1997, relating to the 
consolidated financial statements of CNET, Inc. and subsidiaries as of 
December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated statements of 
operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the 
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, which report appears 
in the December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-KSB of CNET, Inc.


                                            KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


San Francisco, California
March 31, 1997