Case 2. A is a beneficiary in an action with a specific activity on ‘intelligent buildings’, where a Commission decision setting unit costs has been adopted in order to cover the costs of purchasing and operating (personnel + related indirect costs (overheads)) the equipment needed for the action. The situation of A is the following: A has 3 employees operating the equipment in that specific activity on ‘intelligent buildings’, and another 2 working on other activities of the action. The personnel costs for the 3 employees operating the equipment are EUR 150 000, and the personnel costs of the other 2 employees are EUR 80 000. A incurs other direct costs for the action worth EUR 250 000, out of which EUR 100 000 are the costs of purchasing the equipment needed for carrying out the activity on ‘intelligent buildings’. A declares as actual costs the personnel costs for the employees working on the activities other than the specific activity on ‘intelligent buildings’, as well as the other direct costs of those activities (not included in the unit costs). The unit cost adopted by Commission decision is EUR 800. The number of units used for the project is 300. Both the personnel costs and the purchasing costs included in the unit costs (150 000 +100 000) and the indirect costs associated to them must be excluded from the calculation of the actual costs of the beneficiary declared under the budget categories ‘direct personnel costs’ and ‘other direct costs’ and ‘indirect costs’. A will declare its costs in the financial statement (Annex 4): Direct personnel costs Direct costs of subcontrac ting Direct costs of support to third parties Other direct costs (EUR) Indirect costs Costs of ‘intelligent buildings’ (special unit costs) Total costs 80 000 0 0 150 000 57 500 = 25% ( 150 000 + 80 000) 300x800= 240 000 527 500 Case 3: A Commission decision allows for the use of a unit cost of 30 Euro for each laboratory analysis of the samples collected in an action. This is included in the GA under the option of article 5.2 (f). That unit cost covers the costs of the laboratory technicians involved in the analysis and of the equipment used. The beneficiary will declare the actual costs of the direct personnel working in the action under ‘direct personnel costs’, but excluding the costs of the laboratory technicians analysing the samples, because they are already covered by the unit cost under ‘specific category of costs’. Personnel Costs of beneficiary A: 100 000 for 2 researchers...
Case 2. Bob has the holiday off, and works a reduced schedule. He gets 38 hours pay (30 hours worked plus 8 hours holiday benefit time. If he wants his usual 40 hours pay, he has to use 2 hours of banked time. Case 3: Bob has the holiday off, but works a full schedule. He gets 40 hours straight time, and 8 hours at time and a half (because he didn't get a reduced schedule.) Job Sharing Policy Purpose: To permit employees greater flexibility in work scheduling while ensuring all responsibilities are fulfilled. Policy:
Case 2. ' (suspicion) means any case where, regardless of any exemption or threshold, in respect of any transaction, any person handling the transaction knows or suspects that the applicant for business may have been, is, or may be engaged in money laundering or the funding of terrorism, or that the transaction is carried out on behalf of another person who may have been, is, or may be engaged in money laundering or the funding of terrorism;
Examples of Case 2 in a sentence
Case 2: Quotes valued of 100,000 or less (not set-aside)A ten (10) percent bid preference shall automatically apply for Micro Business Enterprises.
The vendor maintained the training records for the police department’s entire staff, and provided reporting to the department to help it ensure compliance with the CJIS Security Policy.Use Case 2 - Level One Security Awareness TrainingA local police department hires custodial staff that will have physical access throughout the PD (a physically secure location) after normal business hours to clean the facility.
In general it will not be possible to require all of the criteria necessary in Case 1 for cases in Case 2.
Some company said the value should be decided based on Case 1 while other companies argued it should be Case 2 or Case 3.
HARQ-Ack disabling for dynamically scheduled PDSCHAs discussed in [12], there could be cases where the HARQ-ACK feedback from the UE is of little value for the gNB due to e.g. certain latency constraints which would anyhow not enable a HARQ re-transmssions in time (Case 2 & 3 in Sec.
More Definitions of Case 2
Case 2 means any case where, in respect of any one-off transaction, any person handling the transaction knows or suspects that the applicant for business is engaged in money laundering or that the transaction is carried out on behalf of another person engaged in money laundering.
Case 2. The firm receives a tax benefit from the state Similarly situated independent firms under the reference tax system (no tax benefit) Firm A is an independent firm receiving a tax benefit from the state Firm B is an MNE affiliate
Case 2. The Company’s TSR is below the 25th percentile, earning a zero multiplier. Case 3: The Company’s achieves the highest TSR versus the Competitor Group, earning a 2.0 multiplier.
Case 2 means circumstances where an FCA-authorised person is the UK parent institution required by Chapter 2 of Title 2 of Part 1 of the capital requirements regulation to comply with requirements of the regulation on a consolidated basis, other than circumstances falling within Case 3;
Case 2. ABA[ id, l ] returns 1 to all. Due to the recast-ability of APDB, the RC[ id, l ] instance will terminate and recover a same value to all. The value can be invalid due to the global external Predicate, the honest parties will repeat Election, until Case 1 occasionally happens.
Case 2. We assume that at some point a critical Conf/Deny query occurred, resulting in an inconsistency in the way B responded to Conf/Deny queries arose. From this point onwards E’s behavior is undefined, and we can say nothing about whether E’s output ⟨m∗, σ∗⟩ is valid or not. However we do know that in this case, the valid message signature pair ⟨m', σ'⟩ for XJ was queried on Conf/Deny. In this case, B solves the CDH problem if β = 1, E has produced a valid forgery σ' for XJ on m', and the random Conf/Deny query ⟨m', σ⟩ is in fact the critical query ⟨m', σ'⟩ on XJ , which occurs with probability at least η/(2µ1ρµc) and in time τ . The only problem is that if an inconsistency arises, then E may not terminate within time τ . Therefore if E does not terminate in time τ , then B terminates E and assumes that a critical query did occur (and so proceeds as if β = 0). From cases 1 and 2, we can see that B solves the CDH problem in time τ with probability at least γ = min{η/(2µ1ρ), η/(2µ1ρµc)} = η/(2µ1ρµc). This is non-negligible, contradicting the hardness of the CDH problem.
Case 2. There is a vertex u ∈ U such that no vertex in Au is terminated. In this case, the adversary defines δ(v) = ⊥ for each vertex v ∈ Gt where ∆(v) is undefined and subdivides Gt to construct Gt+1. Since no vertex in Au is terminated and Au contains all vertices at distance at most 1 from u in Gt, the distance from u to Tt(a) in Gt is at least 2 for all inputs a. Moreover, since u /∈ Rt(y + 1, y + 2) ∪ Rt(y + 2, y + 3), the distance from u to Rt(y + 1, y + 2) ∪ Rt(y + 2, y + 3) in Gt is at least 1. Let pi be the process whose state is u. Since u ∈ U ⊆ Q, process pi ∈ Q. In the configuration represented by any n-vertex clique in Gt, all components of St+1 are —. Thus, the state of pi after it takes 2 steps starting from any configuration in Gt that contains u is the same. Let v be the vertex in Gt+1 that represents this state.