Court Not Bound by Agreed-Upon Recommendations, Stipulations, and Requests Sample Clauses

Court Not Bound by Agreed-Upon Recommendations, Stipulations, and Requests. If this agreement contains any provisions under Fed. X. Xxxx. P. 11(c)(1)(B) by which the government agrees to recommend, stipulates, or agrees not to oppose the defendant's request, that a particular sentence or sentencing range is appropriate or that a particular provision of the federal sentencing guidelines, or a policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does not apply, such a recommendation, stipulation, or request does not bind the Court, which may make independent factual findings by a preponderance of the evidence and may reject such recommendations, requests, and stipulations between the parties. If the Court rejects one or more recommendations, stipulations, or requests, the defendant is not entitled to withdraw the defendant’s plea of guilty and is not released from the obligations described in this agreement. Under such circumstances, the government reserves the right to support and defend, in connection with any post-sentencing proceedings, any decision the Court may make with regard to the defendant's sentence, whether or not such decision is consistent with the government’s recommendations, stipulations, or requests set out in this agreement.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Court Not Bound by Agreed-Upon Recommendations, Stipulations, and Requests

  • Representations and Recommendations Unless otherwise stated in writing, neither Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc, nor its brokers or licensees have made, on their own behalf, any representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to any element of the Property including but not limited to, the legal sufficiency, legal effect, or tax consequences of this transaction. Any information furnished by either party should be independently verified before that party relies on such information. Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc. recommends that Buyer consult its attorneys and accountants before signing this Agreement regarding the terms and conditions herein and that Seller satisfy itself as to the financial ability of Buyer to perform.

  • APPLICATION AND PARTIES BOUND 5.1 The parties bound by this General Agreement are listed in Schedule 5.

  • Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:

  • AMENDMENTS TO APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT; WAIVERS A. This Agreement may not be modified or amended except by an instrument or instruments in writing signed by all of the Parties and after completing the requirements of Section

  • Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users?  Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain.  Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function.  The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation?  Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator?  Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions?  Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour.  Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project?  It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.

  • Exceptions to Informal Negotiations and Arbitration The Parties agree that the following Disputes are not subject to the above provisions concerning informal negotiations and binding arbitration: (a) any Disputes seeking to enforce or protect, or concerning the validity of, any of the intellectual property rights of a Party; (b) any Dispute related to, or arising from, allegations of theft, piracy, invasion of privacy, or unauthorized use; and (c) any claim for injunctive relief. If this provision is found to be illegal or unenforceable, then neither Party will elect to arbitrate any Dispute falling within that portion of this provision found to be illegal or unenforceable and such Dispute shall be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction within the courts listed for jurisdiction above, and the Parties agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of that court. CORRECTIONS There may be information on the Site that contains typographical errors, inaccuracies, or omissions, including descriptions, pricing, availability, and various other information. We reserve the right to correct any errors, inaccuracies, or omissions and to change or update the information on the Site at any time, without prior notice.

  • Rules of Competition Concerning Undertakings 1. The following are incompatible with the proper functioning of this Agreement in so far as they may affect trade between the Parties:

  • Notification and Public Notice If either party desires to alter or amend this Agreement, it shall, not less than one hundred and twenty (120) days prior to the termination date set forth under the Duration Article, provide written notice and a proposal to the other party of said desire and the nature of the amendments, and cause the public notice provisions of law to be fulfilled.

  • Obligation to Provide Public Access to Grant Records The Division reserves the right to unilaterally cancel this Agreement in the event that the Grantee refuses public access to all documents or other materials made or received by the Grantee that are subject to the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, known as the Florida Public Records Act. The Grantee must immediately contact the Division's Contract Manager for assistance if it receives a public records request related to this Agreement.

  • GEOGRAPHIC AREA AND SECTOR SPECIFIC ALLOWANCES, CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS The following allowances and conditions shall apply where relevant: Where the company does work which falls under the following headings, the company agrees to pay and observe the relevant respective conditions and/or exceptions set out below in each case.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.