alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"id":10,"date":"2018-03-14T11:09:19","date_gmt":"2018-03-14T15:09:19","guid":{"rendered":"\/law-regulation\/"},"modified":"2022-07-27T10:20:33","modified_gmt":"2022-07-27T14:20:33","slug":"law-regulation","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"\/law-regulation\/","title":{"rendered":"Law & Regulation"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"CT_Main_1_cache_pnlPageHeading\">\n<h2>FMC Regulations & Statutes<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<h3>Regulations<\/h3>\n<p>e-CFR pertaining to the FMC: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ecfr.gov\/current\/title-46\">46 CFR 500<\/a> (GPO)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.gpo.gov\/fdsys\/browse\/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR\">Historical versions of the CFR<\/a>\u00a0(annual edition from FDsys)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div>\n<p>Shipping Act of 1984<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?path=\/prelim@title46\/subtitle4\/partA&edition=prelim\">46 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 40101 – 41309<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?path=\/prelim@title46\/subtitle4\/partB\/chapter423&edition=prelim\">46 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 42301 – 42307<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?path=\/prelim@title46\/subtitle4\/partB\/chapter421&edition=prelim\">46 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 42101 – 42109<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Public Law 89-777<br \/>\n(Financial Responsibility for Death or Injury to Passenger and<br \/>\nfor Nonperformance of Voyage)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/uscode.house.gov\/view.xhtml?path=\/prelim@title46\/subtitle4\/partC&edition=prelim\">46 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 44101 – 44106<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>FMC Regulations & Statutes Regulations e-CFR pertaining to the FMC: 46 CFR 500 (GPO) Historical versions of the CFR\u00a0(annual edition from FDsys) Shipping Act of 1984 46 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 40101 – 41309 Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 46 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 42301 – 42307 Section 19 of the Merchant Marine... <a class=\"read-more\" href=\"\/law-regulation\/\">Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":3,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6926,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10\/revisions\/6926"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Exhibit 32.1
Form 10-KSB
Pacific Alliance Corporation
File No. 33-78910-C



                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the
Pacific Alliance  Corporation  (the "Company")  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the fiscal  year  ended  December  31,  2003 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report")  for the  purpose  of
complying with Rule  13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934 (the  "Exchange  Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code.

     I, Mark A.  Scharmann,  President  and Principal  Executive  Officer of the
Company, certify that:

     1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d)
of the Exchange Act; and

     2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of Pacific Alliance
Corporation.


Dated:     April 23, 2004               By: /s/ Mark A. Scharmann
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Mark A. Scharmann
                                            President and
                                            Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit
23.1





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








The Board
of Directors


Action
Fashions, Ltd.


(nka
Mexus Gold US)








We
consent to the use in the Registration Statement of Action Fashions, Ltd. (nka,
Mexus Gold US) on Form S-8 and related prospectus, of our audit report dated
June 22, 2009, relating to the financial statements of Action Fashions, Ltd. as
of March 31, 2009 and 2008, and for the years ended March 31, 2009 and
2008.








/s/ Cordovano and Honeck
LLP


Cordovano
and Honeck LLP


Englewood,
Colorado


January
6, 2010
{"agency":"FMCS","generated":"2016-08-01 08:42:54","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"}],"value":"2016"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"5"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"2"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["FMCS"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["12"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["28"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["3"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2016","quarter":"Q3"}
#### Keith A. COUSINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. MOVIE GALLERY, INC., formerly doing business as Game Crazy, formerly doing business as M.G. Midwest, formerly doing business as M.G.A., Inc., formerly doing business as Moovies, Inc., formerly doing business as Movie Gallery Asset Management, Inc., formerly doing business as Movie Gallery Finance, Inc., formerly doing business as M.G.A. Realty 1, Inc., formerly doing business as Movie Gallery Licensing, Inc., formerly doing business as Movie Gallery Promotions, Inc., formerly doing business as Movie Gallery Services, Inc., formerly doing business as Movie Gallery US, Inc., formerly doing business as MovieGallery.com, Inc., formerly doing business as Video Library, Inc., formerly doing business *782as Video Update, Inc.; Hollywood Entertainment Corporation; M.G. Digital, LLC; M.G.A. Realty I, LLC; MG Automation LLC; Movie Gallery US, LLC, Respondents — Appellees.

No. 09-2386.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 13, 2010.

Romaine S. Scott, III, Haskell Slaughter Young & Rediker, LLC, Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellant. Michael A. Condyles, Peter J. Barrett, Jeremy S. Williams, Kutak Rock LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished'opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Keith A. Cousins appeals from the bankruptcy court’s orders holding him in contempt for filing a lawsuit in violation of the releases contained within the Order of Confirmation of the Appellees’ Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Plan, and denying reconsideration of that order.* Our review of the record and the briefs filed by the parties discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the bankruptcy court. *Cousins v. Movie Gallery, Inc.,*No. 07-33849 (Bankr.E.D. Va. Sept. 25 & Nov. 17, 2009). 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.*

*

 We previously granted the parties’ petition for permission to appeal directly to this court from the bankruptcy court. *See*Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8001(f)(2)(B).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6440

EUGENE DOUGLAS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary; DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND 

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner; 

MAJOR DOUGLAS CLOMAN; INTERNAL INVESTIGATION UNIT; WARDEN 

KATHLEEN S. GREEN; EASTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; ASS. 

WARDEN VICTORIA BURKHARD; MICHAEL KING, Chief of Security; 

CAPTAIN WALTER S. HOLMES; LT. D. BARNES; LT. SHEILA BROWNKING; CAPTAIN C. TYLER; J. CHATHAM, Mailroom; SGT. PAUL 

ZIOLKOWSKI; OFFICER CHARLES WESTBROOK; LT. B. POLK; SGT. 

COPELAND; OFFICER D. CULLOTTA; SGT. GREGORY WARD; OFFICER 

COPE; OFFICER M. PARKER; OFFICER JONES; OFFICER CHRISTINA 

CARTER; SGT. BALDERSON; OFFICER BROMLEY; CORRECTIONAL 

MEDICAL SERVICE; DR. BAHANNA; CMS MEDICAL CONTRACTOR; MARYAM 

MESSAFORTH; OFFICER MCGEE; OFFICER STERLING; OFFICER MERRIT; 

OFFICER DAVIS; OFFICER GUNTER; OFFICER ASHBY; OFFICER SMITH; 

OFFICER WOOTEN; OFFICER TURNER; OFFICER WHITTINGTON; OFFICER 

BYRD; NURSE KATHY KILLMAN; NURSE KENYA; NURSE NIXEN; MARY 

COOPER; BRIAN BOZEMAN; OFFICER MISTER; OFFICER PERSINGER; 

OFFICER HARMON; OFFICER AHALT; OFFICER BAILY,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District 

Judge. (8:11-cv-00255-DKC)

Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eugene Douglas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane 

Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, 

Maryland; Philip Melton Andrews, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Douglas, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Douglas v. Maynard, No. 8:11-cv-00255-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 

9, Feb. 21, 2012). 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
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10787

Summary Calendar

FRANKLIN L. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

K. EDENFIELD, Warden, FCI Fort Worth,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 4:11-CV-61

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Franklin Williams, federal prisoner # 12952-021, appeals the denial of his

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) motions, which followed the disUnited States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 24, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-10787 Document: 00511768031 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2012
No. 11-10787

missal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Williams argues that the dismissal of his

action was illegal and deprived him of substantial constitutional rights, because

the district court did not have before it the complete record. He moves for

appointment of counsel and leave to file an amended and supplemental brief.

Williams’s Rule 60(b) motion (which he entitled a “motion for relief”) and

his Rule 59(e) motion (which he entitled a “motion for reconsideration”) raised

substantially the same arguments presented in his first two motions for reconsideration filed after the judgment of dismissal. The denial of such successive

motions is not reviewable on appeal. See Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 987

F.2d 1199, 1204 (5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); Burnside v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.,

519 F.2d 1127, 1128 (5th Cir. 1975) (per curiam). 

Williams’s notice of appeal was untimely as to the order denying his first

Rule 60(b) motion. Given the absence of a timely notice of appeal, this appeal

is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214

(2007). The motions for appointment of counsel and for leave to file an amended

and supplemental brief are DENIED.

2

Case: 11-10787 Document: 00511768031 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2012
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"cmoran","title":"Commission Advisory Regarding Red Sea Surcharges - Federal Maritime Commission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"2eJkxSM7kX\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/articles\/commission-advisory-regarding-red-sea-surcharges\/\">Commission Advisory Regarding Red Sea Surcharges<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/articles\/commission-advisory-regarding-red-sea-surcharges\/embed\/#?secret=2eJkxSM7kX\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commission Advisory Regarding Red Sea Surcharges” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"2eJkxSM7kX\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Posted January 12, 2024 The Commission recognizes that the threat to commercial shipping imposes costs on the maritime transportation industry.\u00a0The FMC has announced a hearing to explore Red Sea shipping issues. Under statutory authority, the Commission and its staff are closely monitoring rates, charges, and rules that common carriers have implemented as a result of the threats [...]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/seal_final_sm.jpg","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":293}
Exhibit 7.1

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 Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, I hereby 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 annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

Date: November 21, 2006



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|                                                         
|/s/ Chris J. Bradbrook                                   
|Chris J. Bradbrook, President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document

Exhibit 10.6

FIRST AMENDMENT OF
ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM AGREEMENT
This First Amendment of the Energy Storage System Agreement (this “First Amendment”) is made this 10 day of May 2022, between Energy Vault, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Energy Vault”), and DG Fuels, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“DGF”) (collectively, the “Parties” and, individually, a “Party”).
RECITALS
A.Energy Vault and DGF are parties to that certain Energy Storage System Agreement, dated October 25, 2021 (the “Agreement”); and
B.The Parties wish to increase the total size of the Transaction, as specified in Section 1 of the Agreement.
Now, THEREFORE, inconsideration of the mutual obligations in this First Amendment, the parties to this First Amendment agree as follows:
1.           Any capitalized words or phrases used and not defined in this First Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed to them in  the Agreement.
2.          The total size of the Energy Storage Systems to be procured by DGF from Energy Vault, as specified in Section 1 of the Agreement, shall be increased from 1,600 MWh to 2,234 MWh, as such sites and sizes to be specified by DGF.
3.          For purposes of clarify, it is agreed that the pricing formula used to determine the Contract Price, as specified in Section 4 and Annex B of the Agreement, shall remain the same.
4.          In the event of any conflict, inconsistency, or incongruity between any provision of this First Amendment and any provision of the Agreement, the provisions of this First Amendment shall govern and control.


															
	Energy Vault, Inc.			DG Fuels, LLC	
					
	By:	/s/ Robert Piconi		By:	/s/ Mike Darcy
		Robert Piconi			Mike Darcy
		CEO			CEO
FacebookTwitterYouTubeEmail
CareersFAQsContact UsSite Map

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
Search for:
HomeAbout UsMission & ValuesThe Agency helps build better relationships through joint problem-solving and constructive responses to inevitable conflict.Our HistoryAgency DepartmentsOffice of the DirectorOffice of Procurement and Operational SupportOffice of Human ResourcesOffice of BudgetOffice of Information TechnologyOffice of FinanceOffice of the General CounselOffice of Field Operations (Regional)Office of Client ServicesOffice of Field Operations (National)Office of National ProjectsOffice of Conflict Management & Prevention/InternationalCenter for Conflict Resolution EducationOffice of Field AdministrationOffice of Policy and StrategyOffice of Congressional and Public AffairsOffice of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)LocationServicesResolving Labor-Management DisputesCollective Bargaining MediationGrievance MediationAlternative Bargaining ProcessesTechnology Assisted Group Solutions -TAGSBuilding Labor-Management RelationshipsEffective Contract AdministrationEffective  CommunicationsLabor-Management Partnership BuildingOrganizational DevelopmentRepairing Broken RelationshipsAlternative Dispute Resolution for GovernmentWorkplace MediationAdministrative Program DisputesFacilitationDispute Resolution Systems DesignRegulatory NegotiationsPublic Policy DialoguesEducation and OutreachSkills Development TrainingFMCS InstituteFMCS Collaboration with UniversitiesInternational ServicesConferences and WorkshopsArbitrationRequesting a PanelArbitration Policies and ProceduresInformation for FMCS Roster ArbitratorsInformation on Joining the Arbitrator RosterArbitration Contact InformationResourcesForms & Applications for FMCS ServicesMediation Agreement FormsArbitrationNotice to FMCS of Upcoming Collective Bargaining (F-7)Labor-Management Grants ProgramFOIA RequestsDocuments and DataMulti-MediaListen to the Conflict Resolutionary PodcastFMCS 101 Video SeriesSpeeches & PresentationsFAQsNLMC InfoVirtual Services
Search for:  2019
Home/Time 2014-Present/2019 Previous			Next
2019										In April 2019, The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and FMCS officially committed to work together to resolve federal workplace disputes by utilizing ADR as a means of efficiently reducing the backlog of federal sector charges.
And, in June, FMCS and the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) announced a new commitment to work together to provide labor organizations and agencies with an opportunity to resolve negotiability appeals before they are considered by the FLRA’s Members for a decision.
Greg Raelson2020-03-03T11:50:53-05:00													Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
FacebookTwitterEmail Copyright 2020 FMCS | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  EEO/No FEAR Act  |  PAR  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508 |  SORNs
FacebookTwitterYouTubeEmail
----

Exhibit 99.21

CONSENT OF PINCOCK, ALLEN & HOLT 

We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securitiesand Exchange Commission, of references to our name in connection with mineralreserve and resource estimates for the El Morro Project and to the use ofinformation derived from the technical report entitled "Feasibility NI 43-101Technical Report for the El Morro Copper-Gold Project, Region III, Chile," datedMay 9, 2008, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for thefinancial year ended December 31, 2008. 

PINCOCK,ALLEN&HOLT
 
***/s/ Doug Jones, P.E.                 *

DOUG JONES, P.E. Principal Engineer Vice President of Mining and Geological Services 
Dated this 31st day of March, 2009.**