alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 4.1
 
Restricted (See Reverse)
 
Number                                                                                                                                                                         Shares
 
                                         INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
 
American Defense Systems, Inc.
 
TOTAL AUTHORIZED ISSUE
100,000,000 SHARES PAR VALUE $0.001 EACH
COMMON STOCK
 
 
This is to Certify that __________________________________ is the owner of ___________________________________________________________ fully paid andnon-assessable shares of the above Corporation transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.
 
Witness, the seal of the Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized officers.
 


	Dated
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	SECRETARY
	 
	PRESIDENT




 
 
 















 
         The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:
 




	TEN COM
	 
	— as tenants in common

	TEN ENT
	 
	— as tenants by the entireties

	JT TEN
	 
	— as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common

	UNIF TRANSFERS MIN ACT 
	 
	— ________________Custodian______________

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	                (Cust)                              (Minor)

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act___________

	 
	 
	                                (State)

	 
	 
	Additional Abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list







 
 
For value received, _____________________ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto
 


	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
	 
	 

	IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)

	 
	 
	 

	 

	 
	 
	 

	 

	Shares represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint

	 
	 
	 

	 

	Attorney to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.




 




	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Dated:
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	In presence of
	 
	 
	 







 
NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME ASWRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER
Joel GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-440

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 4, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40047 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VICTOR REYES-PASCUAL, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L:03-CR-1267-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Victor ReyesPascual concedes that the arguments raised are foreclosed by circuit precedent but seeks to preserve them for further review. The Government has moved for summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. The motion is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6598

EARL N. OWENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Governor; LAMONT W.

FLANAGAN, Commissioner; WILLIAM JEDNORSKI,

Warden; OFFICER PEARSON; OFFICER KELLER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-97-1839)

Submitted: January 12, 1999 Decided: March 12, 1999

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl N. Owens, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney

General, Glenn T. Marrow, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Earl Owens, a Maryland inmate, filed an action against various

prison officials alleging that they violated his constitutional

rights by not protecting him from other inmates. He now appeals

the district court order granting Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment and dismissing Owens’ complaint filed pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1994).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. We affirm the court’s dismissal of

Defendants Governor Parris Glendening, Commissioner of Pre-trial

Detention & Services Lamont Flanagan, Warden William Jednorski, and

Officer Mark Keller based on the reasoning of the district court.

As to Defendant Officer William Pearson, we find that Owens failed

to submit sufficient evidence cognizable on summary judgment to

show that a trial was necessary on the issue of whether Officer

Pearson knew of a substantial risk of harm to him. See Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (1986) (requiring nonmoving

party to submit more than just some evidence to avoid summary judgment); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (stating

that nonmoving party must allege “‘specific facts showing there is

a genuine issue for trial’”). Accordingly, we also affirm the

court’s granting of summary judgment to Defendant Pearson. We further deny Owens’ motion for summary remand. 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
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) by decision of that court of 9 May 2005 in Nicolae Bot v Préfecture du Val-de-Marne

(Case C-241/05)

(2005/C 193/30)

Language of the case: French

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Conseil d'Etat (Council of State) (France), of 9 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 2 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Nicolae Bot and Préfecture du Val-de-Marne.

The Conseil d'Etat asks the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the question of what is meant by ‘date of first entry’ in terms of Article 20(1) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and, in particular, whether any entry taking place at the end of a period of six months during which there has been no other entry into the territory, as well as, in the case of an alien who carries out multiple entries for stays of short duration, any entry immediately following the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the last known ‘first entry’, should be regarded as a ‘first entry’ into the territory of the States which are party to that convention.

----
Unassociated Document


  
    

     

    John R. Klopp

    Chief
Executive Officer

     

    August
31, 2009

    


    Mr.
Geoffrey G. Jervis

    Chief
Financial Officer

    Capital
Trust, Inc.

    410 Park
Avenue, 14th
Floor

    New York,
NY 10022

    


    Re:           Employment
Agreement dated as of September 29, 2006

    


    Dear
Geoff:

    


    Pursuant
to Section 1(b) of your Employment Agreement with Capital Trust, Inc. and CT
Investment Management Co., LLC (collectively the “Company”) dated as of
September 29, 2006 (the “Agreement”), the Company hereby extends the Expiration
Date (as defined in the Agreement) by on year (i.e., to December 31,
2010).

    


    Please
acknowledge your receipt of this notice by signing below and returning a copy to
my attention.

    


    Very
truly yours,

     

     

    /s/ John R. Klopp


    John R.
Klopp

    


     

    
      
        	/s/ Geoffrey G.
      Jervis  	 
	Geoffrey G.
      Jervis 	 


      

       

    

    
 

    410
Park Avenue • 14th Floor •
New York,
New York 10022 • 212.655.0220 •FAX 212.655.0044 • NYSE Symbol:
CT
Kenneth Paul SHEPHERD v. STATE

CR-15-0924

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 14, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7463
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VERNON JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-95- 260-L) Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 31, 1997 Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vernon Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. John Alexander Gephart, 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 orders denying hismotions for a downward departure in sentence and requesting permission to amend original pleading. We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Joh nson , No. CR-95-260-L (D. Md. Aug. 25 & Sept. 10, 1997). 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
----

----

I Információ

Bizottság

----

A FORGALOMBAHOZATALI ENGEDÉLYEKRŐL SZÓLÓ KÖZÖSSÉGI HATÁROZATOK ÖSSZEFOGLALÁSA A GYÓGYSZERKÉSZÍTMÉNYEK TEKINTETÉBEN2005.3.15-TŐL2005.4.15-IG

(A 2001/83/EK (1) irányelv 34. cikke vagy a 2001/82/EK (2) irányelv 38. cikke értelmében hozott határozatok)

(2005/C 118/01)

–   Nemzeti forgalombahozatali engedély kiadása, fenntartása vagy módosítása

----

(1)HL L 311, 2001.11.28., 67. o.

(2)HL L 311, 2001.11.28., 1. o.

----

I. sz. MELLÉKLET

GYÓGYSZERKÉSZÍTMÉNYEK TALÁLMÁNYI MEGNEVEZÉSEI, GYÓGYSZERFORMÁI, HATÁSERŐSSÉGEI, ALKALMAZÁSI MÓDJAI ÉS A FORGALOMBA HOZATALI ENGEDÉLYEK JOGOSULTJAINAK LISTÁJA A TAGÁLLAMOKBAN

----

II. MELLÉKLET

MEGNEVEZÉSEK, GYÓGYSZERFORMÁK, HATÁSERŐSSÉGEK, ALKALMAZÁSI MÓDOK, ÁLLATFAJOK ÉS FORGALOMBA HOZATALI ENGEDÉLY JOGOSULTAK LISTÁJA AZ ÉRINTETT TAGÁLLAMOKBAN, IZLANDON ÉS NORVÉGIÁBAN

----

III. MELLÉKLET

A NEVEKET, A GYÓGYSZERFORMÁT, A GYÓGYSZEREK HATÁSERŐSSÉGÉT, AZ ALKALMAZÁSI MÓDOT, A KÉRELMEZŐT, VALAMINT A TAGÁLLAMOKBAN FORGALOMBA HOZATALI ENGEDÉLLYEL RENDELKEZŐKET TARTALMAZÓ LISTA

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM SIERRA PACIFIC PENSION INVESTORS '84 MARCH 31, 1998 FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          16,978
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,862
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,976
<PP&E>                                       4,926,170
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,604,663
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,547,842
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          157,324
<BONDS>                                      1,543,234
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,847,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,547,842
<SALES>                                        121,168
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               176,702
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,319
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                64,343
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,462
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             42,462
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,462
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
        

</TABLE>
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 Yearly Report of MobileBits Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter Kostiuk , Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o (d)); and2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of MobileBits Holdings Corporation.





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.








MobileBits Holdings Corporation





By:
/s/ Walter KostiukWalter KostiukChief Executive Officer





Date: January 31, 2011
Marlon Mauric JAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3184

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 18, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
fs12010ex10xv_chinabct.htm


    
 

    
      Exhibit
10.15

      


      Confirmation
Agreement

      


      


      Party A:
Guangxi Liuzhou Baicaotang Pharmaceutical Co.,Ltd.

      Party B:
Tang Huitian

      Party C:
Guangxi Liuzhou Baicaotang Pharmaceutical Co.Ltd. Guigang Branch

      


      In
consideration of:

      Party B
signed the "Personal loan / Guarantee contract"(2007,No.004 ) with Industrial
and Commercial Bank of China Co., Ltd. Liuzhou Branch ,Longcheng Sub-Branch
(hereinafter referred to as ICBC Longcheng sub-branch) on February 8th
2007. The loan agreement  amount of RMB1,600,000 yuan ,term of the
agreement for 96 months, and the repayment of the loan  principal and
interest on a monthly basis equal to repay the loan principal and interest way.
Party C to provide a property as collateral.

      


      The
above-mentioned loan of party B actually for the Party A using.

      To
crystallize A, B, C parties’ rights and obligations of the above-mentioned loan,
after negotiating, the parties hereby agree as follows:

      


      Article
1

      Party A
actual use of all of the above-mentioned loans.

      Party A
confirmed that the above-mentioned loan which B borrowed the entire amount from
the ICBC Longcheng sub-branch are the actual use of Party A. Party B transfer
the total amount of the loan to party A’s use as a Travel section (no interest
no mortgage ) before December 31st, and
list on Party A’s account of the “own travel section of Party B” From January
1st
2009, Party A still continue to use all of the above-mentioned
loans.

      


      Article2
Party A is responsible for repayment of all the above-mentioned
loans

      


      From
January 1st
2009, the two sides agree that Party A should bear the responsibility and the
above loan account in full recognition in the Party A’s account as "bank loans",
Party A, as the actual use of all of these loans, unconditionally undertake the
obligation to repay all the loan principal and interest of Party B, until full
satisfaction of principal and interest, and to bear the full cost may arise
(Bonds due to the costs incurred by the creditor claims).

      


      Article3
Party C continues to bear the responsibility of collateral.

      


      To ensure
that the "agreement" the successful fulfillment of Party C collateral duty not
due to the above A and B sides of the relevant facts change confirmation, Party
C continue to bear the collateral liability for the above loans.

      The above
facts are the confirm of A ,B, C pairs’ relevant facts.

      This
agreement is to be written up in three original copies with the Party A, B, C
shall each hold one original copy, entry into force after the seal
of  Party A, C and Party B sign the agreement.

       

      Party A
: Guangxi Liuzhou Baicaotang Pharmaceutical Co.,Ltd.

      Party B :
legal
representative : Tang Huitian

      Party C:
Guangxi Liuzhou Baicaotang Pharmaceutical Co.Ltd. Guigang Branch

      Date :
12/31/2008
----

(2005/C 132/66)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 115, 14.5.2005

Past publications

OJ C 106, 30.4.2005

OJ C 93, 16.4.2005

OJ C 82, 2.4.2005

OJ C 69, 19.3.2005

OJ C 57, 5.3.2005

OJ C 45, 19.2.2005

These texts are available on:

----
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

MANSFIELD HELIFLIGHT, INC. 

v. 

CITY OF BURLINGTON, 

VERMONT 

Complainant, 

Resnondent 

FAA Docket No. 16-14-06 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the 

above-referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for FederallyAssisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, 

subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is 

hereby extended to January 16, 2017. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case. 

C. Willis, Director 

of Airport Compliance 

an Management Analysis 

)2---15-lt 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 15, 2016, I caused to be placed in the 

United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the foregoing document 

addressed to: 

FOR RESPONDENT 

Pablo 0. Nuesch 

Anjali G. Patel 

Spiegel and McDiarmid, LLP 

1875 Eye Street, N.W. 

Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20006 

FOR COMPLAINANT 

Benjamin H. Klein 

Gross & Klein LLP 

Pier 9, Suite I 00 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-600 

FAA Airport Compliance and Field Operations, A CO-l 00 

FAA Regional Office, ANE 

Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 624 

Recognizing the self-determination of Gibraltar to determine its status as 

a British Overseas Territory. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2023 

Mr. BACON (for himself, Mr. CONNOLLY, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. COLE, Mr. 

FLEISCHMANN, Mr. ROUZER, Ms. TITUS, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mrs. 

RADEWAGEN, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. MAST, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. KILMER, 

Mr. CALVERT, Mr. WALTZ, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. ALLRED, Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida, and Mr. FINSTAD) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the self-determination of Gibraltar to determine 

its status as a British Overseas Territory. 

Whereas the Department of State recognizes Gibraltar as an 

overseas territory of the United Kingdom based on the 

1713 Treaty of Utrecht; 

Whereas the citizens of Gibraltar have freely and democratically expressed their view to remain a British Overseas 

Territory in 1967 and 2002, when 99.6 and 98.48 percent of the Gibraltarians, respectively, voted in a popular 

referenda their wish to remain a British Overseas Territory; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 624 IH 

Whereas the United States has relied on Gibraltar’s military 

facilities numerous times, including America’s first overseas military intervention in 1801 against the Barbary 

States, World War II, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization intervention in 2011 in Libya; 

Whereas, during World War II, General Dwight Eisenhower 

used Gibraltar as his headquarters to plan the liberation 

of North Africa stating, ‘‘Without it the vital air cover 

would not have been quickly established on the North African fields.’’; 

Whereas the security situation in North Africa and the Middle East continues to underscore the need for the United 

States to maintain secure access to Gibraltar’s military 

facilities; 

Whereas Gibraltar has the right, under the United Nations 

Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to determine its own future; and 

Whereas the United Kingdom is a loyal ally that has stood 

by the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) the United States honors the contribution 

4 that Gibraltar has made to advancing United States 

5 security interests in the Mediterranean region since 

6 1801 and extends its deepest appreciation and 

7 thanks to the Government of Gibraltar and its citi8 zens; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HRES 624 IH 

1 (2) the views and rights of Gibraltarians should 

2 always be imperative in any discussion of Gibraltar’s 

3 status as a British Overseas Territory. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Fontez RELFORD, Appellant, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

WD 82399

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: July 30, 2019

Fontez Relford, Licking, MO, Appellant, pro se.

Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General, and Olivea A. Myers, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Before Division Four: Karen King Mitchell, Chief Judge, and Gary D. Witt and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judges

**Order**

Per Curiam:

Fontez Relford1 appeals, *pro se* , an order granting summary judgment to the Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) on his petition seeking a declaration that DOC violated § 558.019.5 in determining his sentence structure. In his sole point on appeal, Relford argues that the motion court erred in granting summary judgment because, having initially exercised its discretion under § 558.019.5 to convert Relford's consecutive sentences to concurrent sentences, DOC's act of subsequently rescinding the conversion deprived him of his liberty interest in an earlier parole eligibility date without due process. Because DOC did not convert Relford's sentences, which were otherwise correctly calculated, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

1

In both his brief and a few documents in the legal file, Relford spells his last name "Releford"; in other documents, he spells it "Relford." Because all DOC and court-generated documents spell his last name "Relford," that is how we spell it here.