alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

OF INSPRO TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION REQUIRED

BY RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT



In connection with the Quarterly Report of InsPro Technologies
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony R. Verdi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify that, based on my knowledge:



(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.



November 14, 2012



| | /s/ ANTHONY R. VERDI                                | 
| | --------------------------------------------------- | 
| | Anthony R. Verdi                                    | 
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3285

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit B
An example of a 

relay purchased 

by Safari from 

Song Chuan

The Song Chuan relay is part of the 

printed circuit board (PCB) made by 

Safari that is sold to WDP.

WDP integrates the PCB from Safari into 

their power distribution box that ships into 

Ford Motor Company
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1239

WILLIAM D. GARNER, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of deceased,

Olga M. Garner,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-95-1648-JFM)

Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 10, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William D. Garner, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Joseph Peters, Sr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 52(c) granting judgment in favor of the Defendant in

Appellant’s medical malpractice action. We review the district

court's findings of fact in support of the granting of a Rule 52(c)

motion under the clearly erroneous standard and its conclusions of

law de novo. See Carter v. Ball, 33 F.3d 450, 457 (4th Cir. 1994).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find

that the district court did not err in finding that Appellant’s

claims could not be maintained as a matter of law. Accordingly, we

affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Richard L. Wolfson, Respondent, v Peter M. Calamel, Appellant.

Order unanimously modified as an exercise of discretion, and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The record does not establish that plaintiff’s failure to comply with defendant’s discovery demands or the trial court’s discovery order was *960willful or contumacious; therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint or preclude plaintiff from introducing any medical evidence *(see,*CPLR 3126; *Donner v 50 Tom Corp.,*99 AD2d 504; *Wood v Ford Nursing Home Co.,*79 AD2d 841; *see also, Gaylord Bros. v RND Co.,*134 AD2d 848; *Shamash v Ohrbach’s Inc.,*57 AD2d 531). Because plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to comply with the prior discovery order caused substantial delays, in the exercise of our discretion we impose a monetary sanction in the sum of $500 on plaintiff’s counsel *(see, Crow-Crimmins-Wolff & Munier v County of Westchester,*110 AD2d 871, 872-873; *Siebert v 60 Sutton Corp.,*99 AD2d 950). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolf, J.—discovery.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
INPUT

.05

80
Consistent with USTR's Section 301 notice, OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. requests

confidential treatment for the information designated as business confidential in this submission. Such

information consists of information that would not customarily be released to the public, including

business or trade secrets regarding production costs and processes, data on sales, product characteristics

customers, destinations, and other product, sales, and cost-related business secrets. Business confidential

information has been indicated herein by enclosing it in single brackets (“[ ]”). A public version of these

comments is also being filed with all confidential information removed.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. submits this exclusion request on behalf of our business

unit. OMRON in the US is the only designer of this product and only supplier of this component.

KNOB,RECLINE is a plastic switch knob actuator and is used only automotive purposes of a power seat

switch which moves a passenger seat, of which is an OEM-specified dimension. It is only used for

further assembly of components which go into domestic automobile production, which is specified by

auto manufacturer.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

The tariff action ultimately poses a risk of significant damage to OMRON, the domestic automobile

industry, and ultimately the US consumer as a increase in price. Like in the case of similar approvals for

vehicle components at the HTS level, OMRON views this product in the same manner. Immediate

movement of production to a US manufacturer or another country would pose significant re-tooling

costs, significant amounts of time, and approvals pertaining to consumer automobile safety standards are

costly and would take a significant amount of time to obtain.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. believes that CBP can easily exclude the KNOB,BENCH

in question based solely on the product description. The following are draft CBP exclusion instructions:

"KNOB,RECLINE for POWER SEAT SWITCH; pear-shaped molding with two trapezoidal hollow

connectors and a cylindrical light bulb holder at one end for Plastic Recline knob; Made of plastic resin - ABS with dimensions 45.00mm X 20.00mm X 12.00mm."

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

June 13, 2005

Before

Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

No. 04-2328 v.

RAJIB K. MITRA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United

States District Court

for the Western

District of Wisconsin.

No. 03-CR-153-S

John C. Shabaz, Judge.

Order

After concluding that the district court had correctly

calculated the range under the Sentencing Guidelines, this court

ordered a limited remand so that the district court could state

on the record whether the sentence remains appropriate now that

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), has limited the

Guidelines to advisory status. See United States v. Paladino,

401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005).

The district judge has replied that he would today impose

the same sentence, knowing of the Guidelines' advisory status.

The range under the Guidelines is 87 to 108 months, and Mitra's

sentence of 96 months is slightly below its mid-point. We

do not see any reason why such a sentence would be deemed

"unreasonable" in post-Booker practice. The judgment of the

district court therefore is affirmed

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
exv10w13






Exhibit 10.13




FOURTH AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED

EXECUTIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT




     This Fourth Amendment (the “Amendment”) to that certain Second Amended and Restated
Executive Services Agreement dated as of November 30, 2009 (the “Employment Agreement”) by and
between Sacker Consultants, Inc. (the “Lender”), Neil Sacker (the “Employee”) and The Film
Department Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, as successor-in-interest to The Film
Department Holdings LLC, (the “Company”), is made as of April 27, 2010 (the “Effective
Date”), and is entered into by and between Company, Lender and Employee.



     WHEREAS, Company, Lender and Employee have previously entered into the Employment
Agreement; and



     WHEREAS, Company, Lender and Employee have agreed to amend specific terms of the
Employment Agreement in accordance with the terms set forth below. All capitalized terms not
defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Employment Agreement.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements made herein, the parties hereto agree
as follows:



     1. The Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting both
references to “April 30, 2010” in Sections 1 and 4, and substituting “May 14, 2010” in
lieu thereof in both instances.



     2. This Employment Agreement is intended to comply with Section 409A of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) and the regulations and
guidance promulgated thereunder (collectively, “Code Section 409A”) and will be
interpreted in a manner intended to comply with Code Section 409A.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Fourth Amendment as
of the date first above written.



 



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
    THE FILM DEPARTMENT HOLDINGS INC.
	
 
	
    SACKER CONSULTANTS, INC.

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
    /s/ Mark Gill
	
 
	
    /s/ Neil Sacker

	
    

	
 
	
    


	

    By:


	
 
	
    Mark Gill
	
 
	
    By:
	
 
	
    Neil Sacker

	

    Its:


	
 
	
    CEO
	
 
	
    Its:
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
    /s/ Neil Sacker

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
    


	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
    Neil Sacker
Filed 9/11/14 P. v. Gerlach CA4/1 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION ONE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

ERIK GERLACH, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 D065365 

 (Super. Ct. No. SCD251809) 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne 

Moring, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

 Defendant Eric Gerlach was charged with one count of personation of another 

individual (Pen. Code, § 529, subd. (a)(3))1; the complaint also alleged he had served one 

prior prison term (§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668), and had two strike prior convictions (§§ 667, 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 
2 

subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The parties entered into a plea bargain pursuant to which 

Gerlach pleaded guilty to the charged offense; the other allegations were to be dismissed. 

Gerlach understood and agreed he would be sentenced to 365 days in local custody and 

receive a grant of felony probation. The court sentenced Gerlach to 365 days in the 

custody of the sheriff, imposed a series of fines, and granted Gerlach felony probation. 

 Gerlach subsequently asked the court to resentence him because his plea 

agreement was not knowing and voluntary, but the court denied his request. Gerlach 

subsequently filed a notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. We 

affirm the judgment. 

FACTS 

 On August 22, 2006, Gerlach unlawfully and falsely personated Edward Gerlach 

in a manner in which he could have become subject to a suit and/or incur a charge. 

DISCUSSION 

 Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below. 

Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for 

error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California

(1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel has identified no arguable issues. 

 We granted Gerlach permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but 

he has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 

Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably 

arguable appellate issues. Gerlach has been competently represented by counsel on this 

appeal. 
3 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

McDONALD, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. 

IRION, J.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6118

Invacare Corp:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**
I, Christopher C. Spencer, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of First State Bancorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) (Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and34-47986);  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 12, 2004                                                                  /s/ Christopher C. Spencer   Christopher C. Spencer   Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer, andPrincipal Accounting Officer
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed August 5, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00638-CR

DAVID ALLEN MCHAM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18-90145-CC2-F

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Whitehill, Partida-Kipness, and Pedersen, III

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III

Before the Court is appellant’s July 23, 2019 motion to dismiss the appeal. The motion is 

signed by appellant and by counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). We GRANT the motion and 

DISMISS the appeal. 

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

190638F.U05

/Bill Pedersen, III/

BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DAVID ALLEN MCHAM, Appellant

No. 05-19-00638-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 2, Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18-90145-CC2-F.

Opinion delivered by Justice Pedersen, III, 

Justices Whitehill and Partida-Kipness 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

Judgment entered this 5th day of August, 2019.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2014

t0421 

# Order

Clerk April 28, 2014

148479

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148479

COA: 317398

Eaton CC: 12

- 020205

- FH

ALLEN LEI ROSCOE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 15, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
127991 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 127991 COA: 231665 Wayne CC: 99-011015 MICHAEL B. REED, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 28, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0221 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2006

Clerk