alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Stanley ALBRITTON, Appellee.

No. 70-57.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 3, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 193 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2006 

Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

AN ACT 

To increase the penalties for violations by television and 

radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, indecent, and profane language. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Broadcast Decency 

5 Enforcement Act of 2005’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

S 193 RFH 

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN PENALTIES FOR OBSCENE, INDECENT, 

2 AND PROFANE BROADCASTS. 

3 Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 

4 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)) is amended— 

5 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and 

6 (D) as subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; 

7 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the fol8 lowing new subparagraph: 

9 ‘‘(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the viola10 tor is— 

11 ‘‘(i)(I) a broadcast station licensee or permittee; 

12 or 

13 ‘‘(II) an applicant for any broadcast license, 

14 permit, certificate, or other instrument or authoriza15 tion issued by the Commission; and 

16 ‘‘(ii) determined by the Commission under 

17 paragraph (1) to have broadcast obscene, indecent, 

18 or profane language, the amount of any forfeiture 

19 penalty determined under this subsection shall not 

20 exceed $325,000 for each violation or each day of a 

21 continuing violation, except that the amount as22 sessed for any continuing violation shall not exceed 

23 a total of $3,000,000 for any single act or failure to 

24 act.’’; and 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

S 193 RFH 

1 (3) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated by 

2 paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘subparagraph (A) or 

3 (B)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)’’. 

Passed the Senate May 18, 2006. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Gerald W. LIPKE, Relator, v. Honorable Joe A. COWART, Jr., Judge of the Court of Record of Brevard County, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 69-740.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 4, 1970.

Rehearing Denied April 13, 1970.

Noah C. McKinnon, Jr., of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery & D’Aiuto, Rockledge, for relator.

David M. Porter, County Sol., Titusville, for respondent.

OWEN, Judge.

Manslaughter by culpable negligence, proscribed by Section 782.07, F.S.1967, F.S.A., is a felony under the definition of Section 775.08, F.S.1967, F.S.A., because it can be punished by imprisonment *150in the state prison. Griffin v. State, Fla. App. 1969, 217 So.2d 893; cf. Brown v. State, Fourth District Court of Appeal, Case No. 2841, opinion filed February 12, 1970. Since it is a felony (rather than a misdemeanor as contended by relator), the Court of Record of Brevard County does have jurisdiction and the writ of prohibition sought against the respondent, as judge of that court, is denied.

REED, J., concurs.

McCAIN, J., dissents, without opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 183 (Monday, September 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49504-49505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25033]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GT97-68-000]


East Tennessee Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

September 16, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 12, 1997, East Tennessee Natural Gas 
Company (East Tennessee) tendered for filing and acceptance the 
following: (1) A Gas Transportation Agreement between East Tennessee 
and Johns Manville International, Inc. (Johns Manville) pursuant to 
Rate Schedule FT-A (Manville Agreement); and (2) Fourth Revised Sheet 
No. 101 and Original Sheet No. 177 of East Tennessee's FERC Gas Tariff, 
Second

[[Page 49505]]

Revised Volume No. 1, to become effective on November 1, 1997.
    East Tennessee states that on August 15, 1997, Johns Manville and 
East Tennessee entered into the Manville Agreement for service to 
commence on November 1, 1997. Under the Agreement, East Tennessee will 
provide firm transportation service for Johns Manville under East 
Tennessee's Rate Schedule FT-A. The Manville Agreement contains 
provisions which deviate from the Form of Firm Transportation Agreement 
contained in East Tennessee's Volume No. 1 Tariff (Pro Forma FT-A 
Agreement) in the following areas: (1) Description of the rate; (2) 
Transportation Quantity reduction rights; (3) requisite Commission 
approvals; and (4) affiliate assignment.
    East Tennessee states that because the Manville Agreement contains 
provisions which may deviate in a material aspect from the Pro Forma 
FT-A Agreement, pursuant to Section 154.1(d) of the Commission's 
regulations, East Tennessee is filing the Agreement with the Commission 
and requesting that the Commission accept and permit it to become 
effective November 1, 1997. East Tennessee also states that, pursuant 
to Section 154.112(b) of the Commission's regulations, the tendered 
tariff sheets have been amended to include a reference to the Johns 
Manville Agreement.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Section 385.214 and Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must 
be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's 
Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25033 Filed 9-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6397

MICHAEL RAY GARNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; AVA I. GIFT, Office Supervisor III; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA98-454-DKC) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Ray Garner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Garner v. Waters , No. CA-98-454-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 26, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

     I, Dr.  Jan Stahl,  as Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Principal  Financial
Officer of APO Health, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of APO Health, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer(s)  and I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries is made known to us by others within those  entities,  particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)  disclosed in this report any change in the  registrant's  internal  control
over  financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying  officer(s) and I have disclosed,  based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,  to the
registrant's  auditors  and the audit  committee  of the  registrant's  board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

(a) all  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in the  design or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's  internal control over
financial reporting.


May 23, 2005

/s/ Jan Stahl
-------------
Dr. Jan Stahl
Chief Executive Officer
and Principal Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**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 Paivis, Inc. (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, Gregory Bauer, Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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 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.





Dated:
                August 21, 2006 /s/ Gregory Bauer
              ---------------------------------------
              Gregory
                Bauer
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              and
                Principal Financial Officer
Case 04-12169-WWB Doc 33 Filed 06/12/06 Entered 06/12/06 15:06:28 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
Emission Projections by Summary Category

(Includes approved external emission adjustments)

Oxides of Nitrogen

Preliminary Draft: Subject to Change

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN

SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME 2010

ELECTRIC UTILITIES 5.20 COGENERATION 2.08 OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION (COMBUSTION) 2.19 PETROLEUM REFINING (COMBUSTION) 0.58 MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL 4.60 FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING 21.23 SERVICE AND COMMERCIAL 2.94 OTHER (FUEL COMBUSTION) 0.66 SEWAGE TREATMENT 0.04 LANDFILLS 0.13 INCINERATORS 0.09 SOIL REMEDIATION 0.02 OTHER (WASTE DISPOSAL) 0.00 LAUNDERING 0.00 DEGREASING 0.00 COATINGS AND RELATED PROCESS SOLVENTS 0.00 PRINTING 0.00 ADHESIVES AND SEALANTS 0.00 OTHER (CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGS) 0.00 OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION 0.18 PETROLEUM REFINING 0.06 PETROLEUM MARKETING 0.03 OTHER (PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND MARKETING)0.00 CHEMICAL 0.40 FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 0.00 MINERAL PROCESSES 0.17 METAL PROCESSES 0.00 WOOD AND PAPER 0.00 GLASS AND RELATED PRODUCTS 5.78 ELECTRONICS 0.00 OTHER (INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES) 0.01 CONSUMER PRODUCTS 0.00 ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS AND RELATED PROCESS SOLVENTS0.00 PESTICIDES/FERTILIZERS 0.00 ASPHALT PAVING / ROOFING 0.00RESIDENTIAL FUEL COMBUSTION 2.78

FARMING OPERATIONS 0.00 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION 0.00 PAVED ROAD DUST 0.00 UNPAVED ROAD DUST 0.00 FUGITIVE WINDBLOWN DUST 0.00 FIRES 0.03 MANAGED BURNING AND DISPOSAL 8.17 COOKING 0.00 OTHER (MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES) 0.00 LIGHT DUTY PASSENGER (LDA) 12.70 LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 1 (LDT1) 3.76 LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 2 (LDT2) 8.94 MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS (MDV) 13.13 LIGHT HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS - 1 (LHDV1) 4.34 LIGHT HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS - 2 (LHDV2) 0.35 MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS (MHDV) 0.93 HEAVY HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS (HHDV) 0.34 LIGHT HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS - 1 (LHDV1)13.11 LIGHT HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS - 2 (LHDV2)3.17 MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS (MHDV)13.13 HEAVY HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS (HHDV) 113.33 MOTORCYCLES (MCY) 0.90 HEAVY DUTY DIESEL URBAN BUSES (UB) 2.08 HEAVY DUTY GAS URBAN BUSES (UB) 0.27 SCHOOL BUSES - GAS (SBG) 0.13 SCHOOL BUSES - DIESEL (SBD) 0.96 OTHER BUSES - GAS (OBG) 0.37 OTHER BUSES - MOTOR COACH - DIESEL (OBC)0.76 ALL OTHER BUSES - DIESEL (OBD) 0.49 MOTOR HOMES (MH) 0.75 AIRCRAFT 2.80 TRAINS 15.89 OCEAN GOING VESSELS 0.27 COMMERCIAL HARBOR CRAFT 0.69 RECREATIONAL BOATS 2.38 OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL VEHICLES 0.12 OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT 28.87 FARM EQUIPMENT 65.82 FUEL STORAGE AND HANDLING 0.00

GRAND TOTAL FOR SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN2010 368.19

Notes: Migration ID: 2012_SIP_V103 AF Migration Table: AF_MASTER_2012SIP103
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

TIMOTHY MCANDREW, 

Administrator of the Estate of 

MEGHAN MCANDREW, Deceased, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY, 

JAMES HOSKIN, and 

JOHN DOES 1-6, 

Defendants. 

 No. 4:22-CV-00834 

(Chief Judge Brann) 

ORDER 

JANUARY 17, 2024 

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32) is GRANTED IN PART:

a. Defendant James Hoskin is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE from the Second Amended Complaint;

b. Defendants John Does 1-6 are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE from Count III of the Second Amended

Complaint;

Case 4:22-cv-00834-MWB Document 36 Filed 01/17/24 Page 1 of 2
2. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause as to why Count II of the Second 

Amended Complaint shall not be dismissed with prejudice no later 

than January 31, 2024;

3. If Plaintiff shows cause as to why Count II of the Second Amended 

Complaint shall not be dismissed with prejudice by January 31, 2024, 

Defendants are to respond no later than February 15, 2024; 

alternatively, if Plaintiff fails to show cause as to why Count II of the 

Second Amended Complaint shall not be dismissed with prejudice by 

January 31, 2024, Defendants are also to file an answer no later than 

February 15, 2024.

4. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32) is DENIED in all other 

respects.

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:22-cv-00834-MWB Document 36 Filed 01/17/24 Page 2 of 2
#### C. C. SALTER et al. v. ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION et al.

77-220.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 28, 1978.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1978.

George M. Boles, Birmingham, for appellants.

R. S. Richard and William K. Martin, Montgomery, for Arrow Truck Line, Inc., Vulcan Freight Line, Inc., and Alabama Freight, Inc., appellees.

Carl L. Evans, Montgomery, Ann R. Downing, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Ala. Public Service Commission, Juanita W. McDaniel, Jim Zeigler and C. C. Whatley, appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of *Jefferson Trucking Co. v. Alabama Public Service Commission,*347 So.2d 372 (Ala.1977). See also *Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Alabama Public Service Commission,*356 So.2d 129 (Ala.1978); and *Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Beasley,*341 So.2d 939 (Ala.1977).

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR

                      RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Pangea Petroleum Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott
Duncan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.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; and


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


Date: August 12, 2005               By: /s/ Scott Duncan
                                        ----------------
                                        Scott Duncan
                                        Chief Financial Officer
# PREFLIGHT CHECKLIST CONDUCT THIS CHECKLIST PRIOR TO EACH FLIGHT

1. UAS MAINTENANCE RECORD

– CONFIRMED

2. OPERATOR REVIEW FORM

- COMPLETE

3. OBSTACLES

- IDENTIFIED & ALTITUDES CONFIRMED

4. WEATHER

– FORECAST VFR, WING < 8.3 M/S

5. SD CARD

- LOCKED & INSERTED, CAMERA ON

6. R/C TRANSMITTER

- ON (BATTERY > 50%)

7. UAS BATTERY

- INSTALLED AND SECURE

8. PROPELLERS

- INSTALLED AND ORIENTATION CO RRECT

9. LED INDICATOR

- GREEN

10. TABLET

- ON (BATTERY > 25%)

11. TELEM ETRY

- CONNECTED (95% MINIMUM)

12. FLIGHT MODE

- CORRECT

13. UAS BATTERY

- CHARGED ( > 95% )

14. MISSION

- LOADED

15. WAYPOINTS

- VERIFIED (ALT < 120 METERS AGL)

16. MISSION DISTANCE

- WITHIN PARAMETERS (< 4 KM)

17. RETURN TO HOME ALTITUDE ADJUSTED FOR OBSTACLES

18. COMPASS CALIBRATED

19. GPS

- ACQUIRED (SATELLITES > 10 )

20. UAS HOME POSITION ACQUIRED

21. TAKEOFF ZONE

- CLEAR/SECURE
255 La. 273

#### Edwin A. GUILLORY and Marjorie C. Guillory v. M. J. CZARNIECKI, Individually and as Administrator of the Unemancipated minor son, Charley A. Czarniecki, et al.

Nos. 49609, 49613, 49615.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 15, 1969.

Rehearings Denied Jan. 20, 1970.

Pike Hall, Jr., Wilkinson, Woods, Car-mody, Meadows & Hall, Shreveport, for defendant-appellant and third-party plaintiff.

Richard Switzer, of Lunn, Irion, Switzer, Johnson & Salley, Shreveport, for Aetna Ins. Co.

DeWitt T. Methvin, Jr., of Gist, Meth-vin & Trimble, Alexandria, for State Mutual Ins. Co.

SUMMERS, Justice.

This case was consolidated with American Home Assurance Company, et al. v. M. J. Czarniecki, et al., 255 La. 251, 230 So.2d 253.

In this suit Edwin A. Guillory and his wife Marjorie C. Guillory sought damages in the amount of $109.48 in favor of Mr. Guillory for medical expenses and $3,000 in favor of Mrs. Guillory for injuries against M. J. Czarniecki, individually and as administrator of the estate of his minor son Charley A. Czarniecki, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Aetna Insurance Company in solido. M. J. Czarniecki filed third party petitions against State Farm and Aetna, praying that there be judgment in solido against them for any amounts for which he might be cast in the principal suit. He also prayed that they be liable for the fees of his attorneys on account of their failure to defend him and his son.

The suit arises out of the automobile collision referred to in the consolidated action, and our determination of the issues there results in the conclusion that there should be judgment in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Guil-lory against M. J. Czarniecki and his son Charley. State Farm and Aetna are not liable under their policies for damage to Mr. and Mrs. Guillory, but State Farm is liable to M. J. Czarniecki and his son for attorneys fees in the amount of $1,250.

The only issue we did not resolve in the companion case relates to the quantum of damage to which Mr. and Mrs. Guillory are entitled. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeal agreed on the quantum, 216 So.2d 122, and we find no manifest error or abuse of discretion which would warrant disturbing the awards.

For the reasons assigned, except for amending the award of attorneys fees, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.

SANDERS, J., dissents for the reasons assigned in the consolidated case.
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                   FORM 10-QSB

[X] Quarterly report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
    of 1934

For the Fiscal Quarter Ended September 30, 2002

                                       or

[ ] Transitional report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act

                          Commission File No. 000-26641

                               PSLRA, Incorporated
                               -------------------
                 (Name of Small Business Issuer in its Charter)

          Delaware                                    13-4031420
------------------------------           -------------------------------------
State or other jurisdiction of           I.R.S. Employer Identification Number
incorporation or organization

            317 Madison Avenue, Suite 2310, New York, New York 10017
            --------------------------------------------------------
                     (Address of principal executive office)

Issuer's telephone number:  (212) 949-9696
                            --------------

Check whether the issuer: (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section
13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter
period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) been
subject to such filing requirements for the past ninety (90) days.

Yes     X       No
    ----------     -----------

State the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common
equity, as of the latest practical date: As of November 12, 2002, there were
2,545,000 shares of Common Stock, par value $.001 per share, outstanding

Transitional Small Business Disclosure Format (check one):
Yes             No     X
    ----------     -----------


         PSLRA, Incorporated files this amendment to its quarterly report on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 to include as an exhibit
the Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002