of error regarding the tender back determination. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 2 . See Weiner v. San Diego County, 210 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.2000). 3 . See Klem v. County of Santa Clara, 208 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir.2000). 4 . 29 C.F.R. § 541.118(a) (To remain exempt, "an employee need not be paid for any workweek in which he performs no work.”) 5 . 29 C.F.R. § 778.105. 6 . See Childers v. City of Eugene, 120 F.3d 944, 947 (9th Cir.1997) (one suspension); Paresi v. City of Portland, 182 F.3d 665, 668 (9th Cir.1999) (two improper suspensions not sufficient to constitute an "actual practice”); Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410, 422 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); but see id. at 419 (finding actual practice
holding that to determine whether a statement was voluntary the court must consider the totality of all the surrounding circumstances  both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation and decide  whether a defendants will was overborne by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession holding in case where the asserted defense to plaintiffs contract action to recover fees for his professional services was that the professional services were for the unlicensed practice of law in new jersey and that the contract was therefore illegal and unenforceable that questions of unlawful practice of law will turn on the particular facts presented that the issue could be determined only on a full and complete appreciation of the events and surrounding circumstances that the trial court not evaluate the merits of appellees affirmative defense without reference to matters outside the pleadings and therefore that judgment on the pleadings was not warranted holding that trial court may consider circumstances surrounding making of agreement in determining whether agreement is ambiguous and noting that ambiguity exists when language of agreement in and of itself supports reasonable interpretation distinct from reasonable interpretation reached when language is read in light of surrounding circumstances holding that an encounter is a seizure if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave holding that a reasonable factfinder could infer from the facts and circumstances surrounding the suspensions that the six improper suspensions do not amount to a pattern or practice of violations demonstrating an intention not to pay employees on a salaried basis