1 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE

LEGAL DIVISION
2 Katey B. Piciucco, Esq., SBN 276935
Christina Carroll, Esq., SBN 263713
3 300 Capitol Mall, 17th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
4 Telephone: 916 492-3500
Facsimile: 916 324-1883
5
Attorneys for the California Department of Insurance
6
BEFORE THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
7
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8

9
In the Matter of the Education Provider File No.: GG201700037
10 Certification of:
OAH No.: 2018101348
11 XCEL TESTING SOLUTIONS,

12 a/k/a XCEL TESTING SOLUTIONS, LLC FIRST AMENDED ACCUSATION

GREENLIGHT TRAINING, INC.
13 GREENLIGHT TRAINING, INC., d.b.a.
XCEL TESTING SOLUTIONS
14
Respondent.
15

16
17
JURISDICTION AND PARTIES
18
1. The California Department of Insurance (“Department”), brings this matter
19
against Respondent, XCEL TESTING SOLUTIONS (“XCEL”), before the Insurance
20
Commissioner of the State of California (“Commissioner”). The Insurance Commissioner is the
21
principal government regulator of insurance in California, pursuant to California Insurance Code
22
Section 12900 et seq.
23
2. This matter arises under the California Insurance Code (“CIC”), Division l,
24
Part 2, Chapter 5, which governs agent and broker licensing and the certification of prelicensing
25
education providers.
26
3. The regulations governing agents, brokers, and prelicensing education
27
providers are contained in Title 10, Chapter 5 of the California Code of Regulations (“CCR”).
28

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 1 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 4. This proceeding is governed by Section 11500 et seq. of the Administrative
2 Procedure Act, located in the California Government Code, Title 2, Division 3, Part 1, Chapter 5.
3 5. XCEL is currently certified by the Commissioner to act as a prelicensing
4 education provider (Provider No. 224958), and was initially certified on June 18, 2012 as
5 Greenlight Training, Inc. (“Greenlight”). In or about April 2014, XCEL acquired Greenlight. In
6 or about May 2014, Greenlight requested a name change to Greenlight Training, Inc., d.b.a. Xcel
7 Testing Solutions. In or about June 2016, Greenlight requested a name change to Xcel Testing
8 Solutions.
9 6. Since September 28, 2014, XCEL has been approved to offer three California
10 prelicensing education courses:
11 a. Course No. 279847, titled Accident and Health Only, which requires 32
12 hours of training pursuant to CIC Section 1749, subdivisions (f) and (g).
13 b. Course No. 279848, titled Life-Only, which requires 32 hours of training
14 pursuant to CIC Section 1749, subdivisions (d) and (g).
15 c. Course No. 279849, titled Life, Accident and Health Combo, which
16 requires 52 hours of training pursuant to CIC Section 1749, subdivisions
17 (d), (f) and (g).
18 7. Now and since approximately October 19, 2015, Gregory Sinner (“Sinner”)
19 has been XCEL’s President, CEO, and Provider Director as defined by CCR Section 2186.1,
20 subdivision (l), and a controlling person of XCEL pursuant to CCR Section 2186.1, subdivision
21 (d). Prior to October 19, 2015, Scott Rubman was XCEL’s Provider Director.
22 8. On August 15, 2018, the original Accusation was mailed to XCEL. Shortly
23 thereafter, XCEL informed the Department that it had been acquired by the Colibri Group on
24 August 13, 2018. XCEL asked the Department if its provider number 224958 and approved
25 courses could be transferred to Xcel Solutions LLC (“New Xcel”), a new company with a
26 different FEIN and a slightly different name. New Xcel was formed by Colibri Group for the
27 purpose of purchasing XCEL. The Department advised that New Xcel needed to submit a new
28

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 2 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 Prelicensing Education Program Provider Certification Application. New Xcel has submitted
2 said application, and as of today, it is being processed.
3 9. At the present time, New Xcel is operating XCEL and using XCEL’s provider
4 number and approved courses. Since New Xcel purchased only the assets of XCEL, not the
5 equity, XCEL remains in existence. To the Department’s knowledge, Sinner is still XCEL’s
6 owner, President, and CEO. Sinner is also an employee of New Xcel.
7

8 APPLICABLE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

9 10. The Commissioner may bring an action to rescind a prelicensing education
10 provider certification pursuant to CCR Sections 2188(a)(3) and 2188.9(b). Section 2188(a)(3) of
11 said regulations sets forth various grounds upon which the Commissioner may deny a
12 prelicensing education provider certification. Section 2188.9(b)(3) authorizes the Commissioner
13 to rescind said prelicensing education provider certification upon any grounds set forth in Section
14 2188(a)(3). Section 2188.9(b)(6) authorizes the Commissioner to rescind a prelicensing education
15 provider certification if the provider has allowed any other person or entity to use the provider's
16 approved provider status or course approval status.
17 11. CIC Sections 1749 through 1749.7 and CCR Sections 2186 through 2188.9,
18 inter alia, govern prelicensing education requirements, standards for approval of courses by
19 providers, and standards for the certification of persons or entities who may provide prelicensing
20 education courses.
21 12. The hearing procedure for rescission of provider certification and imposition of
22 fines and penalties on providers determined after a hearing to have failed to meet the prelicensing
23 education curriculum standards are set forth in CIC Sections 1748 and 1749.1, and CCR Section
24 2188.9.
25

26 SUMMARY OF FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

27 13. Between August 2015 and March 2017, the Curriculum Audit Section of the
28 Department’s Curriculum and Officer Review Bureau received several complaints from various

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 3 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 education providers alleging that XCEL’s system allows students to complete its online
2 prelicensing courses in substantially less time than the statutorily required minimum time of 32
3 hours or 52 hours.
4 14. In October 2015, a Department auditor tested one of XCEL’s 32-hour online
5 courses using an ID and password provided by XCEL. Although the auditor finished XCEL’s
6 course in less than one third of the minimum required time, she was unable to obtain a Certificate
7 of Completion without fulfilling the minimum required hours. In spite of this, the Department
8 continued to receive complaints that students were successfully completing XCEL’s courses in as
9 little as two hours.
10 15. In or about January 2017, the Department referred the complaints to its
11 Investigations Division. In 2017 and 2018, Department investigators tested XCEL’s 52-hour
12 online course anonymously, using fictitious names, and successfully completed the course in less
13 than seven hours each time. The Investigations Division concluded that XCEL allows students to
14 complete its prelicensing courses and receive Certificates of Completion without the required
15 hours of study, in violation of CIC Section 1749(k), and CCR Sections 2188.2.5(a)(2),
16 2188.2.5(a)(3)(D), and 2188.5.5(a)(1). Additionally, between June 2015 and July 2017, four
17 administrative disciplinary actions were taken against XCEL by the states of Illinois, Minnesota,
18 and Washington. XCEL failed to notify the Department of any of these administrative
19 disciplinary actions, in violation of CCR Section 2188(c)(1). Also, XCEL’s Provider Director,
20 Gregory Sinner, falsely answered “NO” under penalty of perjury in 2016 and 2018 to Question 22
21 on XCEL’s biennial Provider Renewal Application, which asked if XCEL had been the subject of
22 any administrative agency disciplinary actions. On or about October 5, 2018, the Department
23 learned of an additional August 30, 2018 administrative action taken against XCEL by the state of
24 Florida, which XCEL failed to timely report.
25 16. On or about August 13, 2018, substantially all of XCEL’s assets were acquired
26 by New Xcel, a company formed by the Colibri Group for the purpose of purchasing XCEL.
27 New Xcel is currently operating XCEL, utilizing its provider number and approved courses.
28

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 4 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 17. Although New Xcel claimed that it fixed the system issues referenced in the
2 August 15, 2018 Accusation, data received by the Department refutes this contention. In or about
3 November 2018, the Department received data from New Xcel for California students who took
4 XCEL courses in September and October 2018. The data demonstrates that the XCEL system is
5 still faulty. XCEL’s 20-minute timeout feature did not work consistently, if at all. Students
6 received credit for more time than they were actually logged in (e.g., 40 hours credit in three
7 hours). As a result, students were still able to complete the course in less than the required
8 number of hours.
9
10 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
11 I. COMPLAINTS
12 A. ExamFX
13 18. On or about August 13, 2015, the Department received a complaint from L.P.,1
14 Manager of Regulatory Compliance and Government Affairs at ExamFX, alleging that XCEL
15 does not enforce time requirements on its online prelicensing courses, and that S.R.,2 an
16 independent contractor hired by ExamFX, completed XCEL’s online prelicensing course number
17 279848 in less than three hours, using the fictitious name Yu Liang.
18 19. On or about August 4, 2015, XCEL issued a Certificate of Completion and
19 reported 32 hours of prelicensing credit to the Department for Yu Liang for course number
20 279848.
21 20. On or about September 15, 2016, the Department received a follow-up email
22 from L.P. at ExamFX, advising that XCEL’s system was still not properly enforcing the time
23 requirement for online prelicensing courses. L.P. attached a letter from K.S., an independent
24

25
1
All personal identifying and privileged information regarding the consumers referenced within has been removed
26 from this Accusation for purposes of publication on the Department’s public website pursuant to the provisions of
California Insurance Code Section 12938. Accordingly, the consumers referenced herein are identified by initials
27 only. Specific identifying information related to each consumer is provided in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, for purposes of this Accusation only and will not be included for publication on
28 said public website.

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 5 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 third party, stating that she completed XCEL’s 32-hour life-only course in three hours and 32
2 minutes and received a Certificate of Completion.
3

4 B. License Coach
5 21. On or about October 27, 2016, B.L., the owner and President of License
6 Coach, filed a complaint with the Department, alleging that XCEL allowed students to complete
7 the class without following time and security question requirements. The issues came to B.L.’s
8 attention after an insurer invited License Coach to speak at a convention where XCEL’s
9 representative was also speaking. During XCEL’s presentation, with XCEL’s owner, Sinner, in
10 the audience, XCEL’s salesperson Michael G. stated something to the effect of: “Other providers
11 will not tell you this, but you can cheat your way through XCEL’s course.” P.W., License
12 Coach’s head of sales, and C.D., a former employee of ExamFX, were present and confirmed that
13 the statement was made.
14 22. On or about October 13, 2016, a License Coach representative, using the
15 fictitious name Carlos Jackson (“Jackson”), completed XCEL’s online course number 279849.
16 Jackson was able to complete the course in roughly two hours instead of the 52 hours required by
17 law. Additionally, XCEL’s program did not contain the 12-hour ethics portion. After completing
18 the course, Jackson received an email from XCEL stating, in part:
19
Congratulations, Carlos Jackson! You have completed your course. Have
20 you signed up for your state insurance exam and need study material? If you
have not sign [sic] up for your state exam, do you need help?
21

22 23. On or about October 20, 2016, a License Coach representative, using the

23 fictitious name Odell Benjamin (“Benjamin”), completed XCEL’s online course number 279849.

24 Benjamin was able to complete the online course in roughly two hours instead of the 52 hours

25 required by law. After completing the course, Benjamin received an email from XCEL virtually

26 identical to the email referenced in Paragraph 22 above, acknowledging completion of the course.

27 //

28 //

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 6 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 C. WebCE
2 24. On or about December 12, 2016, D.T., the Education Provider Director for
3 PreLicense.com, a service of WebCE, filed a complaint stating that many customers have told
4 them that they no longer want to use PreLicense.com because, unlike XCEL, it enforces the timed
5 study requirements for its online prelicensing courses.
6 25. On or about November 10, 2016, WebCE’s compliance specialist, D.D.,
7 completed XCEL’s online prelicensing course number 279847. D.D. was able to to complete
8 XCEL’s online course in just two hours and 11 minutes instead of the 32 hours required by law.
9 After completing the course, D.D. received an email from XCEL virtually identical to the email
10 referenced in Paragraph 22 above, acknowledging completion of the course.
11 26. On or about November 10, 2016, XCEL reported 32 hours of prelicensing
12 credit to the Department for D.D. for course number 279847.
13

14 D. A.D. Banker
15 27. On or about March 2, 2017, L.C. with A.D. Banker filed a complaint with the
16 Department. After hearing allegations about XCEL’s courses, A.D. Banker purchased an online
17 California prelicensing course from XCEL.
18 28. On or about February 24, 2017, an A.D. Banker representative, using the
19 fictitious name Yang Zhao (“Zhao”), completed XCEL’s online prelicensing course number
20 279849. Zhao was able to complete the online course in roughly two hours instead of the 52
21 hours hours required by law. After completing the course, Zhao received an email from XCEL
22 virtually identical to the email referenced in Paragraph 22 above, acknowledging completion of
23 the course. A.D. Banker reported that the timer never stopped during Zhao’s periods of
24 inactivity, and that it could be manipulated. For example, when the time zone was changed, the
25 study time changed from three hours to over twenty hours. And although Zhao passed the final
26 exam with a score of eighty-nine percent, the results on XCEL’s transcript page reflected a score
27 of one hundred percent.
28 //

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 7 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 II. THE DEPARTMENT’S AUDIT
2 29. In early September 2015, Gayle Gilbert (“Gilbert”), an Education Compliance
3 Auditor in the Curriculum Audit Section of the Department’s Curriculum and Officer Review
4 Bureau, initiated an audit of XCEL’s education provider activities.
5 30. On or about October 15 and 16, 2015, Gilbert audited XCEL’s online
6 prelicensing course safeguards. XCEL was aware that Gilbert would be conducting the audit,
7 because Gilbert asked XCEL for an ID and password so she could audit the course at no cost to
8 the Department. XCEL provided Gilbert with an ID and password assigned to “California DOI.”
9 Gilbert completed one of XCEL’s 32-hour courses in nine hours and 28 minutes, and also
10 completed the final exam, but was unable to obtain a Certificate of Completion. Gilbert also
11 noticed that she was not logged out of XCEL’s prelicensing course after 20 minutes of inactivity
12 as required by CCR Section 2188.2.5(a)(3)(D).
13 31. On or about October 20, 2015, Roger Bankston (“Bankston”), Manager of the
14 Curriculum Review Section of the Department’s Curriculum and Officer Review Bureau,
15 received an email notification from XCEL that Gilbert completed 11 hours and 50 minutes out of
16 32 hours, and was required to complete the remaining hours before receiving the Certificate of
17 Completion.
18 32. On or about October 21, 2015, Gilbert emailed Sinner and advised him that she
19 was not logged out of XCEL’s prelicensing course after 20 minutes of inactivity as required by
20 law, and that this issue needed to be fixed immediately. Gilbert also requested other information,
21 including a copy of XCEL’s student affidavit demonstrating compliance with CCR Section
22 2188.5.5(a)(4). Gilbert received no response.
23 33. On or about November 18, 2015, Gilbert sent Sinner a follow-up to her
24 October 21, 2015 email, requesting a response by November 30, 2015, or the matter would be
25 escalated to management for review and action. Gilbert received no response, so she referred the
26 matter to Bankston.
27 34. On or about December 7, 2015, Bankston sent a letter to Sinner via certified
28 mail and email, requesting a response to Gilbert’s October 21, 2015 and November 18, 2015

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 8 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 emails. The certified letter was delivered to XCEL and the receipt was signed by Jonas
2 Washington on December 11, 2015. Bankston received no response.
3 35. On or about December 22, 2015, Bankston sent a second letter to Sinner via
4 certified mail and email, noting Sinner’s failure to respond to the prior certified letter and emails,
5 and requiring a response by January 12, 2016. The certified letter was delivered to XCEL and the
6 receipt was signed by Chip Tran on December 28, 2015.
7 36. On or about January 12, 2016, the Department received XCEL’s reply to
8 Bankston’s December 22, 2015 correspondence, but XCEL failed to address the 20-minute
9 inactivity timeout issue, the student affidavit, and other items requested by the Department.
10 37. On or about January 13, 2016, Gilbert emailed Sinner requesting the missing
11 information and requesting a response by January 25, 2016.
12 38. On or about March 4, 2016, Barbara DuVal (“DuVal”), XCEL’s Director of
13 Compliance, responded to Gilbert’s January 13, 2016 email, but provided an unacceptable student
14 affidavit.
15 39. On or about March 9, 2016, Gilbert received an email from Kenny Feierstein at
16 XCEL noting that the “course had been updated to timeout after 20 minutes with a warning at 14
17 minutes.” Gilbert tested the timeout feature and it worked.
18 40. On or about March 14, 2016, Gilbert emailed DuVal acknowledging that the
19 20-minute timeout feature worked, and again asked about the student affidavit.
20 41. On or about April 12, 2016, Gilbert received an email from DuVal stating that
21 the student affidavit would be sent by the end of the day. Gilbert never received the affidavit.
22 42. In or about January 2017, due to the follow-up complaint referenced in
23 Paragraph 20, and the additional complaints referenced in Paragraphs 21 through 28, the
24 Department referred the matter to its Investigations Division.
25

26 III. THE DEPARTMENT’S INVESTIGATION

27 43. In or about January 2017, the Department’s Investigations Division began
28 investigating the allegations that XCEL courses could be completed in less than the required time

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 9 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 of 32 or 52 hours. Department Investigator Kristin Schriber (“Schriber”) was assigned to the
2 case. The investigation included anonymous testing of XCEL’s online courses, a review of
3 XCEL’s business records, and witness interviews.
4
5 A. 2017 Testing
6 44. On or about May 24, 2017, Investigator Schriber used a Visa gift card to
7 purchase XCEL’s 52-hour online prelicensing course number 279849, using the fictitious name
8 Betty Linn. Schriber, with assistance from Investigator Leanne Borden (“Borden”) and Gilbert,
9 completed said course in less than six hours. Schriber received an email from XCEL
10 congratulating her for completing the course.
11 45. On or about May 25, 2017, XCEL notified the Department that Linn had
12 successfully completed the 52-hour course on May 24, 2017.
13

14 B. XCEL’s Records
15 46. On or about June 2, 2017, Schriber requested business records from XCEL for
16 April and May 2017 to include attendance records with the date and time each student logged in
17 and out of the online prelicensing course.
18 47. In or about July 2017, Schriber received the business records from XCEL.
19 48. Schriber’s review of XCEL’s online attendance log for April and May 2017
20 showed that several individuals completed the 52-hour or 32-hour online prelicensing courses in
21 impossible or questionable timeframes.
22 a. XCEL reported that Ke.S. logged into the 52-hour course on April 7, 2017
23 and completed it on April 8, 2017. XCEL’s log did did not indicate the
24 times that Ke.S. logged in and out, but even assuming Ke.S. logged in at
25 12:01 a.m. on April 7, 2017, logged out on April 8, 2017 at 11:59 p.m., got
26 no sleep, and engaged in no other activities, the maximum study time he
27 could have accumulated was about 48 hours. Schriber interviewed Ke.S,
28 who admitted that he initially logged in on April 7, 2017 and completed the

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 10 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 course on April 8, 2018. Ke.S. insisted that he had completed 52 hours of
2 study time because he received a Certificate of Completion, although it is
3 impossible to complete 52 hours in a period of 48 hours.
4 b. XCEL reported that C.A., J.B. and R.F. completed the 52-hour course in 48
5 hours or less, and that T.W. completed the 32-hour course in 24 hours or
6 less.
7 c. XCEL reported that student Ka. S. completed the 52-hour course in less
8 than 72 hours. Schriber interviewed Ka. S., who admitted that she did not
9 spend 52 hours taking the course.
10 d. XCEL also reported that R.H., Q.L., G.R., and S.S. completed the 52-hour
11 course in 72 hours or less, and that C.H. and C.J. completed the 32-hour
12 course in 48 hours or less.
13

14 C. Gregory Sinner Interview

15 49. On July 27, 2017, Schriber interviewed Gregory Sinner, XCEL’s Provider
16 Director. Sinner informed Schriber that XCEL had just finished an update to their system on June
17 1, 2017, based upon Department requirements. Sinner reported that the updated system had better
18 checks and balances and a better timer. When a student completes the XCEL’s prelicensing
19 course, XCEL electronically submits a Certificate of Completion to the Department. If the
20 student has not met the hourly requirement, XCEL will not submit a Certificate of Completion.
21 Sinner claimed the same process existed prior to the system update – XCEL did not report
22 completion for a student if the student had not completed the required minimum number of study
23 hours.
24

25 D. 2018 Testing
26 50. On February 27, 2018, at about 9:06 a.m., Schriber used a Visa gift card to
27 purchase XCEL’s 52-hour California Prepare to Pass Course Bundle-Life, Accident and Health
28 V2 for $199.00, using the fictitious name Jerry Lopez. Schriber, with assistance from Borden,

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 11 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 Gilbert, and Education Compliance Auditor John Padilla, completed said course in less than
2 seven hours. At 3:48 p.m., Schriber received an email from XCEL congratulating her for
3 completing the course with a score of 88 percent.
4 51. On February 28, 2018, Schriber emailed XCEL as Jerry Lopez asking why the
5 Certificate of Completion could not be printed. XCEL responded by stating that only three hours
6 of study time had been completed and 52 hours were needed, but additional hours could be earned
7 in XCEL’s cram courses.
8 52. On February 28, 2018 and March 1, 2018, Schriber conducted additional
9 testing of XCEL’s online prelicensing course, and discovered the following:
10 a. On February 28, 2018, Schriber had 18 minutes of study time in XCEL’s
11 cram course from previously accessing the course. At about 1:50 p.m.,
12 Schriber opened the cram course and left it open with no activity. At about
13 2:15 p.m., Schriber pressed save and close. Schriber was given credit for an
14 additional 43 minutes of study time, and was not logged out for inactivity.
15 b. On February 28, 2018, at about 2:16 p.m., Schriber reopened the cram
16 course and left it open with no activity until about 3:36 p.m., when she
17 pressed save and close. Schriber received credit for an additional 93
18 minutes of study time, and was not logged out for inactivity.
19 c. On February 28, 2018, at about 4:12 p.m., with a total of two hours and 34
20 minutes of study time in the cram course, Schriber opened the cram course
21 and left it open overnight with no activity.
22 d. On the morning of March 1, 2018 just before 7:00 a.m., Schriber observed
23 an XCEL system message that she had been logged out of the course for
24 inactivity. Yet Schriber received credit for four hours and nine minutes of
25 study time.
26 e. On March 1, 2018, at approximately 7:00 a.m., Schriber opened three
27 windows in the cram course. Schriber left the three windows open with no
28 activity for a little over an hour, then pressed save and close. Schriber

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 12 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 accumulated three hours and 11 minutes of study time, and was not logged
2 out for inactivity.
3 f. On March 1, 2018, at about 8:10 a.m., Schriber opened 19 windows in the
4 cram course. Schriber left the 19 windows open with no activity for about
5 two hours and 15 minutes, then pressed save and close. Schriber
6 accumulated 54 hours and three minutes of study time, and was not logged
7 out for inactivity.
8 53. On or about March 1, 2018, XCEL notified the Department that Jerry Lopez
9 had successfully completed the 52-hour course.
10

11 E. L.T. Interview
12 54. On March 1, 2018, Schriber interviewed L.T., a former employee of Banker’s
13 Life. L.T. informed Schriber that while she was at Banker’s Life, she was given an overview and
14 demonstration by XCEL that showed how a Banker’s Life manager could change a Banker’s Life
15 employee’s XCEL prelicensing course status and score. XCEL allowed a manager to mark the
16 employee as completing the course with a passing score even if the employee never took the pre-
17 licensing course. L.T. reported that a student could open five tabs at once and get more hours of
18 credit (i.e., if five tabs were open for one hour, the student would get five hours of credit).
19

20 F. Investigation Findings
21 55. The Department’s investigation revealed that XCEL allows students to
22 complete and receive a Certificate of Completion with less than the minimum number of study
23 hours. As such, XCEL’s methods to monitor student attendance and record the time spent
24 completing the course are inadequate, pursuant to CIC Section 1749(k). XCEL violated the
25 following CCR Sections:
26 a. Section 2188.2.5, subdivision (a)(2), which requires XCEL to include a
27 methodology in the online course to ensure that students cannot complete
28 the course in less time than the minimum period.

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 13 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 b. Section 2188.5.5, subdivisions (a)(1) and (b), which require XCEL to
2 verify that a student was actively engaged in one hundred percent of an
3 online prelicensing course and completed the total number of required
4 training hours.
5 c. Section 2188.2.5, subdivision (a)(3)(D), which requires XCEL to include
6 an electronic component that logs the student out of the course after a
7 period of inactivity of twenty minutes, requiring the student to log back in
8 and re-enter the course.
9
10 IV. SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 2018 DATA
11 56. On or about November 20, 2018, New Xcel provided the Department with data
12 for XCEL’s California students for September and October 2018, to support its contention that
13 the system issues had been fixed. The Department reviewed a sample of this data and discovered
14 that XCEL is still in violation of the CIC and CCR sections referenced above in Paragraph 55.
15 XCEL is still allowing students to complete courses with less than the minimum number of study
16 hours by:
17 a. Allowing students to earn more study time than possible within a given
18 time period.
19 b. Failing to ensure its 20-minute timeout feature is properly functioning.
20 57. Examples of students who received certificates of completion and licenses with
21 insufficient or questionable study hours are as follows:
22 a. On September 1, 2018, M.D. allegedly completed course number 279848
23 at 11:54 p.m. M.D. started the course on August 23, 2018. On September
24 7, 2018, the Department issued a Life-Only license to M.D., based in part
25 on XCEL’s representation that M.D. completed 32 hours of prelicensing
26 education. On September 1, 2018, between 12:00 a.m. and 3:06 a.m., M.D.
27 received credit for about 2400 minutes (40 hours) of continuous study time
28 in just over three hours. At 3:06 a.m., M.D. earned about 15 minutes of

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 14 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 study time, followed by about five minutes at 3:21 a.m., three minutes at
2 3:26 a.m., two minutes at 5:04 p.m., and four minutes at 5:06 p.m. M.D.
3 had no other logins on September 1, 2018 after the four minutes at 5:06
4 p.m., yet the course completion time is 11:54 p.m., so it appears that M.D.
5 received credit for at least 11 hours of the 40-hour login, when he should
6 have received credit for just three hours and six minutes. If the illicit study
7 time (about eight hours) is subtracted, M.D. would have less than the
8 required 32 hours, and would be ineligible for the certificate of completion
9 and license.
10 b. On September 12, 2018, R.G. allegedly completed course number 279848,
11 which he started on September 8, 2018. On September 19, 2018, the
12 Department issued a Life-Only license to R.G., based in part on XCEL’s
13 representation that R.G. completed 32 hours of prelicensing education.
14 XCEL’s data reflects a total of 97.97 hours of study time for R.G., which
15 includes a September 8, 2018 login at 9:51 p.m. for 4920.22 minutes (82
16 hours or 3.42 days) of continuous study time. The Department is unable to
17 ascertain how much, if any, of the 82 hours was legitimate study time. If
18 82 hours are excluded from R.G.’s total study time of 97.97 hours, R.G.
19 would only have about 16 hours, which is insufficient for course
20 completion and a license.
21 c. On October 29, 2018 at 8:08 p.m., C.A. allegedly completed course
22 number 279849, which she started on October 19, 2018. On November 20,
23 2018, the Department issued an Accident and Health and Life-Only license
24 to C.A., based in part on XCEL’s representation that C.A. completed 52
25 hours of prelicensing education. On October 25, 2018, at 4:46 a.m., C.A.
26 earned 161 minutes (2.70 hours) of study time in 23 minutes. On October
27 26, 2018, at 1:27 a.m., C.A. earned 1618 minutes (27 hours) of study time
28 in 63 minutes, and later that evening at 8:40 p.m., C.A. earned 113 minutes

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 15 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 in 12 minutes. On October 27, 2018, at 1:15 a.m., C.A. earned 20 minutes
2 in two minutes. On October 29, 2018, C.A. earned credit for two logins at
3 7:17 p.m.: (i) 14 minutes in zero minutes, and (ii) 48 minutes in 14
4 minutes. XCEL’s data reflects a total of 76.34 hours of study time for
5 C.A., which includes all time listed above. If 31 hours of illegitimate time
6 are subtracted, C.A. would only have about 45 hours, making her ineligible
7 for the certificate of completion and license.
8 d. On October 29, 2018, L.G. allegedly completed course number 279849,
9 which she started on September 18, 2018. On October 30, 2018, the
10 Department issued an Accident and Health and Life-Only license to L.G.,
11 based in part on XCEL’s representation that L.G. completed 52 hours of
12 prelicensing education. On September 28, 2018, at 5:55 p.m., L.G. earned
13 245 minutes (about four hours) of study time in 30 minutes. On September
14 29, 2018, at 11:58 p.m., L.G. received credit for 2749 minutes (nearly 46
15 hours) of continuous study time. On October 1, 2018, at 9:50 p.m., L.G.
16 earned seven minutes in one minute. XCEL’s data reflects a total of 92.80
17 hours of study time for L.G., including the time referenced above. The
18 Department is unable to determine how much, if any, of L.G.’s 46-hour
19 continuous login was legitimate study time. If the 46-hour login and the
20 additional illicit study time is subtracted from L.G.’s total study time, she
21 would only have about 43 hours, which is not enough for a certificate of
22 completion or a license.
23 e. On October 30, 2018, B.K.N. allegedly completed course number 279849,
24 which she started on October 1, 2018. On October 30, 2018, the
25 Department issued an Accident and Health and Life-Only license to
26 B.K.N., based in part on XCEL’s representation that B.K.N. completed 52
27 hours of prelicensing education. On October 10, 2018, at 6:33 a.m.,
28 B.K.N. earned 42 minutes of study time in six minutes; at 6:39 a.m., 62

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 16 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 minutes in 37 minutes; at 7:32 a.m., 40 minutes in nine minutes; and at
2 8:16 a.m., B.K.N. earned credit for two logins: (i) 64 minutes in zero
3 minutes, and (ii) 419 minutes (6.98 hours) in 1.08 hours. On October 12,
4 2018, at 9:02 p.m., B.K.N. earned 55 minutes in 32 minutes. On October
5 13, 2018, at 8:22 p.m., B.K.N. earned 23 minutes in zero minutes, and at
6 9:34 p.m., 18 minutes in one minute. On October 14, 2018, at 6:50 p.m.,
7 B.K.N. earned eight minutes in zero minutes; at 7:12 p.m., seven minutes
8 in zero minutes; and at 7:26 p.m., nine minutes in one minute. On October
9 15, 2018, at 4:55 a.m., B.K.N. earned two minutes in zero minutes; and at
10 4:58 a.m., 19 minutes in zero minutes. On October 18, 2018, at 9:33 p.m.,
11 B.K.N. earned 261 minutes (4.35 hours) in 1.67 hours. On October 30,
12 2018, B.K.N. received credit for two logins at 2:57 a.m.: (i) 197 minutes
13 (3.29 hours) in zero minutes, and (ii) 250 minutes (4.17 hours) in 2.43
14 hours. XCEL’s data reflects a total of 67.44 hours of study time for
15 B.K.N., including the time listed above. B.K.N. would only have about 49
16 hours of study time if the illegitimate time (at least 18 hours) was
17 subtracted, which is insufficient for a certificate of completion or a license.
18 f. On October 30, 2018, H.S. allegedly completed course number 279849,
19 which she started on September 22, 2018. On December 7, 2018, the
20 Department issued an Accident and Health and Life-Only license to H.S.,
21 based in part on XCEL’s representation that H.S. completed 52 hours of
22 prelicensing education. On September 26, 2018, at 4:30 a.m., H.S. earned
23 14 minutes of study time in zero minutes. On September 26, 2018, at 4:39
24 a.m., H.S. received credit for 2848.42 minutes (47 hours) of continuous
25 study time. On October 6, 2018, at 2:22 p.m., H.S. received credit for
26 849.82 minutes (14 hours) of continuous study time. On October 7, 2018,
27 at 1:38 p.m., H.S. received credit for 16 minutes of study time in one
28 minute. XCEL’s data reflects 94.56 total hours of study time for H.S. The

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 17 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 Department is unable to ascertain how much, if any, of the 47-hour and 14-
2 hour login periods were legitimate. If all 61 hours were illegitimate, H.S.
3 would only have about 34 hours of study time, which is not enough for a
4 certificate of completion or a license.
5 58. As noted in some of the examples in Paragraph 57, XCEL’s 20-minute timeout
6 feature is not functioning properly. Over 600 logins reflected more than 24 consecutive hours of
7 study time. The longest login, for student F.S., reflected 1625 consecutive hours, or 67
8 continuous days. A few other egregious examples are listed below:
9
Student Course Login Start Continuous Login Time
10
(in minutes) (in hours) (in days)
11 F.S. 279849 9/3/18 19:17 97550.20 1625.84 67.74
E.C. 279849 10/2/18 6:59 61780.10 1029.67 42.90
12 C.V. 279848 10/24/18 1:57 53671.72 894.53 37.27
D.R. 279849 10/11/18 17:57 26630.50 443.84 18.49
13
L.L. 279848 9/24/18 2:42 24966.30 416.11 17.34
14 D.P. 279849 10/29/18 2:24 20240.37 337.34 14.06

15

16 V. OTHER STATES’ ACTIONS

17 59. On or about May 20, 2016, Sinner signed XCEL’s 2016 Prelicensing

18 Education Program Provider Renewal Application (“2016 Renewal Application”) under penalty

19 of perjury. Sinner answered “NO” to Question 22, which asked if XCEL had been the subject of

20 any administrative agency disciplinary action:

21
Has the provider organization been the subject of any administrative agency
22 disciplinary action relating to its prelicensing or continuing education
provider status? For the purpose of this question, administrative agency
23 disciplinary action includes but is not limited to: having any professional,
24 vocational or business license denied, suspended, placed on probation,
restricted or revoked, or any fine imposed; withdrawing any application or
25 surrendering any license to avoid disciplinary action; being issued a cease
and desist order or its equivalent; being the subject of a conservation,
26 liquidation, rehabilitation or receivership order.
27

28

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 18 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 60. On or about June 16, 2016, Sinner signed XCEL’s amended 2016 Renewal
2 Application under penalty of perjury, again answering “NO” to Question 22.
3 61. In or about September 2016, the Department discovered that XCEL had been
4 the subject of the following disciplinary actions:
5 a. On June 8, 2015, in case number 15-0129, the Office of the Insurance
6 Commissioner for the State of Washington issued a Consent Order Levying
7 a Fine, in which XCEL agreed to pay a fine of one thousand five hundred
8 dollars ($1,500) for selling prelicensing insurance education courses to
9 three consumers before XCEL was an approved provider, and for offering
10 and advertising courses for credit prior to approval.
11 b. On October 22, 2015, in case number 1402, the Commissioner of
12 Commerce for the State of Minnesota issued a Consent and Cease and
13 Desist Order, in which XCEL agreed to pay a civil penalty of five thousand
14 dollars ($5,000), and cease and desist from acting as an education provider
15 until approval was received.
16 c. On June 6, 2016, the Department of Insurance for the State of Illinois
17 issued an Order of Disqualification to XCEL for awarding classroom credit
18 hours when no coursework occurred in a classroom, intentionally
19 misrepresenting itself or its course to students, and using fraudulent or
20 dishonest practices, or demonstrating incompetence or untrustworthiness
21 while conducting business as an education provider.
22 62. On or about December 12, 2016, Gilbert sent a letter by certified mail and
23 email to Sinner, requesting a statement by December 30, 2016 explaining why he answered “NO”
24 to Question 22 on XCEL’s 2016 Renewal Application.
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 19 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 63. On or about January 4, 2017, Sinner provided a response to Gilbert’s
2 December 12, 2016 letter, explaining why he answered “NO” to Question 22 on XCEL’s 2016
3 Renewal Application:
4
Our compliance department fills out all the information for our provider
5 renewals and they bring them to me for a signature. MS [sic] Duval had one
of her assistants complete this application. Her assistant was not aware of any
6 of these incidents in other states as it is not something that we make common
knowledge to our employees. I knew that we were going to be switching
7 everything over from a DBA to XCEL Testing Solutions on this renewal and
paid attention to those details and verifying the tax ID was correct and then
8
just signed it without noticing section 22. I take ownership of that and make
9 no excuses. It was not intentional or an attempt to hide anything. They
brought me several documents for me to sign all at one time and I just gave
10 them a quick look over and then signed. I wish I had a better reason but that
is how it happened.
11

12 64. Pursuant to CCR Section 2188(c)(1), an education provider is required to

13 notify the Commissioner in writing by letter or email no later than 10 days following any change
14 in any of the items listed in subdivisions (a)(1) and (b)(1), which includes items on the
15 Prelicensing/Continuing Education Program Provider Certification/Renewal Application.
16 Additionally, CCR Section 2188(a)(1)(D) requires disclosure of changes to the following:
17
Whether the provider organization has been refused a professional,
18 occupational or vocational license or has had such a license suspended,
restricted or revoked by any licensing authority; or been fined or placed on
19 probation by an administrative agency. The provider organization's response
shall include only those actions relating to their prelicensing and/or
20 continuing education provider status[.]
21 XCEL failed to notify the Commissioner of its June 8, 2015, October 22, 2015, and June 6, 2016
22 administrative actions until January 4, 2017, which is after the statutory time limit, and which
23 notification occurred only after the Department asked XCEL about the administrative actions.
24 65. On or about April 19, 2018, Sinner signed XCEL’s 2018 Prelicensing
25 Education Program Provider Renewal Application (“2018 Renewal Application”) under penalty
26 of perjury, answering “NO” to Question 22, which asked if XCEL had been the subject of any
27 administrative agency disciplinary action.
28

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 20 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 66. In or about May 2018, the Department discovered that XCEL had been the
2 subject of an additional disciplinary action. On July 10, 2017, in case number 17-0160, the
3 Office of the Insurance Commissioner for the State of Washington issued a Consent Order
4 Levying a Fine, in which XCEL agreed to pay one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200) for
5 issuing certificates of completion to aspiring insurance producers that did not complete the full
6 course study time; issuing fraudulent completion certificates; and issuing a certificate of
7 completion to a person who did not complete the course.
8 67. On or about May 29, 2018, Gilbert sent an email to Sinner requesting a
9 statement explaining why he answered “NO” to Question 22 on XCEL’s 2018 Renewal
10 Application, in light of the July 10, 2017 action taken by the Insurance Commissioner for the
11 State of Washington.
12 68. On or about June 15, 2018, Sinner provided a response to Gilbert’s May 29,
13 2018 email, explaining why he answered “NO” to Question 22 on XCEL’s 2018 Renewal
14 Application:
15
I apologize for the confusion. In reviewing and signing our current California
16 renewal paperwork I noted that they needed to change out page 3 and to have
our General Manager Patrick Fraley send them the State of Washington
17 paperwork and our written response that we prepared for notification to each
state. Once we received your notice, we looked into our compliance data
18 master file for California. We found a scan copies of the file we sent you, and
the updated page 3 by itself that for some reason did not get swapped out
19
with original. I am sorry about this error. Most of our compliance staff that
20 completes these renewal paperwork is [sic] not aware of any administrative
action. Only our senior managers our [sic] aware, which is why we have them
21 complete the files when needing additional information like this.
22
69. And as noted above in Paragraph 64, CCR Section 2188(c)(1) requires XCEL
23
to notify the Commissioner of administrative actions within 10 days. XCEL failed to notify the
24
Commissioner of the July 10, 2017 administrative action until June 15, 2018, which is after the
25
statutory time limit, and which notification occurred only after the Department asked XCEL
26
about the administrative action.
27
//
28

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 21 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 70. On or about October 5, 2018, counsel for New Xcel notified the Department of
2 an additional disciplinary action against XCEL. On August 30, 2018, in case number 212932 -17
3 -AG, the Florida Department of Financial Services, State of Florida, issued a Consent Order
4 pursuant to an August 9, 2018 Settlement Stipulation, in which XCEL agreed to pay an
5 administrative penalty of three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500.00). The Florida action
6 alleged that XCEL offered prelicensing courses with inadequate word counts and video time
7 minutes, as well as administrative actions in Washington and Minnesota.
8 71. As noted above in Paragraph 64, CCR Section 2188(c)(1) requires XCEL to
9 notify the Commissioner of administrative actions within 10 days. New Xcel notified the
10 Department of the action on or about October 5, 2018, which is after the statutory time limit.
11

12 VI. THE ASSET ACQUISITION

13 72. After the Department sent the Accusation on August 15, 2018, it received a
14 letter from XCEL dated August 17, 2018, advising that XCEL was being acquired by Colibri
15 Group. XCEL asked the Department to transfer its provider number 224958 and approved
16 courses to Xcel Solutions LLC (“New Xcel”), a new company with a different FEIN and a
17 slightly different name, which was formed by Colibri Group for the purpose of purchasing XCEL.
18 The Department advised New Xcel that it would need to submit a new Prelicensing Education
19 Program Provider Certification Application.
20 73. Pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) dated August 13, 2018,
21 New Xcel agreed to purchase “substantially all of the assets” relating to XCEL’s “business of
22 providing licensing, certification and review courses … (collectively, the ‘Business’).” XCEL
23 and New Xcel agreed that after the closing, New Xcel “shall have the right to manage, administer
24 or operate, as applicable, the Business in any manner that it deems appropriate in its sole
25 discretion.”
26 74. Despite the acquisition, XCEL continues to violate the law, as demonstrated in
27 Paragraphs 56 through 58 above. XCEL is still operating out of the same office in Jacksonville,
28

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 22 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 Florida. New Xcel retained many of XCEL’s staff members, including its compliance team and
2 Sinner.
3

4 STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS
5 75. The facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 74 above show that it would be
6 against the public interest to permit XCEL to hold a certification as an approved prelicensing
7 education provider in the State of California, and constitute grounds for the Insurance
8 Commissioner to rescind XCEL’s prelicensing education provider certification and/or to impose a
9 fine and penalty pursuant to the provisions of CIC Sections 1749.1(d) and 1748 and CCR
10 Sections 2188(a)(3)(B) and 2188.9(b)(3).
11 76. The facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 74 above show that XCEL is not of
12 good business reputation and constitute grounds for the Insurance Commissioner to rescind
13 XCEL’s prelicensing education provider certification and/or to impose a fine and penalty
14 pursuant to the provisions of CIC Sections 1749.1(d) and 1748 and CCR Sections 2188(a)(3)(C)
15 and 2188.9(b)(3).
16 77. The facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 74 above show that XCEL is
17 lacking in integrity and constitute grounds for the Insurance Commissioner to rescind XCEL’s
18 prelicensing education provider certification and/or to impose a fine and penalty pursuant to the
19 provisions of CIC Sections 1749.1(d) and 1748 and CCR Sections 2188(a)(3)(D) and
20 2188.9(b)(3).
21 78. The facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 74 above show that Sinner, a
22 controlling person of XCEL, is lacking in integrity and constitute grounds for the Insurance
23 Commissioner to rescind XCEL’s prelicensing education provider certification and/or to impose a
24 fine and penalty pursuant to the provisions of CIC Sections 1749.1(d) and 1748 and CCR
25 Sections 2188(a)(3)(D) and 2188.9(b)(3).
26 79. The facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 74 above show that XCEL has been
27 refused a professional, occupational or vocational license; had such a license suspended, revoked,
28 restricted; or been fined or placed on probation by any licensing authority for reasons other than

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 23 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 XCEL’s failure to meet the licensing authority's technical requirements for licensure, and
2 constitute grounds for the Insurance Commissioner to rescind XCEL’s prelicensing education
3 provider certification and/or to impose a fine and penalty pursuant to the provisions of CIC
4 Sections 1749.1(d) and 1748 and CCR Sections 2188(a)(3)(E) and 2188.9(b)(3).
5 80. The facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 74 above show that Sinner, a
6 controlling person of XCEL, has knowingly, willfully, or recklessly made any misstatement in
7 any application to the Commissioner or in a document filed in support of such application, and
8 constitute grounds for the Insurance Commissioner to rescind XCEL’s prelicensing education
9 provider certification and/or to impose a fine and penalty pursuant to the provisions of CIC
10 Sections 1749.1(d) and 1748 and CCR Sections 2188(a)(3)(F) and 2188.9(b)(3).
11 81. The facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 74 above show that XCEL has
12 previously engaged in a fraudulent practice or act or has conducted any business in a dishonest
13 matter and constitute grounds for the Insurance Commissioner to rescind XCEL’s prelicensing
14 education provider certification and/or to impose a fine and penalty pursuant to the provisions of
15 CIC Sections 1749.1(d) and 1748 and CCR Sections 2188(a)(3)(G) and 2188.9(b)(3).
16 82. The facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 74 above show that XCEL has
17 shown incompetency or untrustworthiness in the conduct of any business, or, has by commission
18 of a wrongful act or practice in the course of any business, exposed the public or those dealing
19 with XCEL to the danger of loss, and constitute grounds for the Insurance Commissioner to
20 rescind XCEL’s prelicensing education provider certification and/or to impose a fine and penalty
21 pursuant to the provisions of CIC Sections 1749.1(d) and 1748 and CCR Sections 2188(a)(3)(H)
22 and 2188.9(b)(3).
23 83. The facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 74 above show that Sinner, a
24 controlling person of XCEL, has shown incompetency or untrustworthiness in the conduct of any
25 business, or, has by commission of a wrongful act or practice in the course of any business,
26 exposed the public or those dealing with him or her to the danger of loss, and constitute grounds
27 for the Insurance Commissioner to rescind XCEL’s prelicensing education provider certification
28

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 24 of 25 First Amended Accusation

 1 and/or to impose a fine and penalty pursuant to the provisions of CIC Sections 1749.1(d) and
2 1748 and CCR Sections 2188(a)(3)(H) and 2188.9(b)(3).
3 84. The facts set forth in Paragraphs 8 through 10, 16, 17, 56 through 58, and 72
4 through 74 above show that XCEL has allowed another person or entity to use the provider's
5 approved provider status or course approval status, and constitute grounds for the Insurance
6 Commissioner to rescind XCEL’s prelicensing education provider certification and/or to impose a
7 fine and penalty pursuant to the provisions of CIC Sections 1749.1(d) and 1748 and CCR Section
8 2188.9(b)(6).
9 85. The facts set forth in Paragraphs 8 through 10, 16, 17, 56 through 58, and 72
10 through 74 above show that Sinner, a controlling person of XCEL, has allowed another person or
11 entity to use the provider's approved provider status or course approval status, and constitute
12 grounds for the Insurance Commissioner to rescind XCEL’s prelicensing education provider
13 certification and/or to impose a fine and penalty pursuant to the provisions of CIC Sections
14 1749.1(d) and 1748 and CCR Section 2188.9(b)(6).
15

16 PETITION FOR DISCIPLINE

17 The Department prays for issuance of an Order that:
18 1. Rescinds the Department’s approval of XCEL as a prelicensing education
19 provider, pursuant to CIC Section 1749.1(d).
20 2. Imposes a fine and penalty on XCEL in accordance with CIC Sections 1748 and
21 1749.1(d).
22

23 Dated: December 31, 2018 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE

24

25

26 By /s/
CHRISTINA CARROLL
27 Attorney III
28

#1104604.1 Xcel Testing Solutions Page 25 of 25 First Amended Accusation