Institutional background Sample Clauses

Institutional background. 1. Each Party shall establish or maintain an appropriate institutional framework and mechanisms necessary for the proper functioning of the public procurement system and the implementation of the provisions of this Chapter.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Institutional background. Describes the applicant institution in terms of its location, demographics, mission, relationship to the service area and past successes in the project area.
Institutional background. This part will describe and have an overview of the actual situation of gender diversity among European board of directors. It exposes the measures that the European Union and several of their member states have recently taken namely with regards to the introduction of gender quotas to strive for gender equality on boards of directors of large listed companies. Moreover, the positive and negative effects of the implementation of this law will be considered taken into account different views.
Institutional background. Purdue University is a public university located in northwest Indiana with about 45,000 students of which 33,500 are undergraduates. Slightly more than 50 percent of the under- graduate students are Indiana residents and about 14 percent are international students. In-state student annual tuition is $10,000 and the total cost of attendance is $23,000. Out- of-state domestic student tuition is $29,000 and the total cost of attendance is $42,000. International student tuition is $31,000 and the total cost of attendance is $46,000. The average SAT score for undergraduate students is 1260 (28 ACT) but varies con- siderably by major. Potential students apply to and are accepted by colleges within the university and the admissions cutoff differs significantly by college. More than 40 percent of undergraduate students begin in engineering or science, but many switch to a major in an- other college after the first year. While not impossible, administrative hurdles make it very difficult for students to switch into engineering or science majors if they were not initially accepted into those colleges as a first-year student. Similar, but less insurmountable, hurdles exist for many other majors including those in the business school. Purdue’s ISA program is called “Back a Boiler.” The first year of the ISA program was the 2016-2017 academic year and the university offered the program to students in the final few months of the prior school year and over the summer. Interested students submit an application which includes permission to run a credit check. If the student has a bankruptcy or is currently in debt collection, they are disqualified. This is the only information the university requests as part of the credit check. To be eligible for the ISA, students must have remaining financial need after exhausting merit-based scholarships, grants, and opportunities for direct subsidized federal loans, direct unsubsidized federal loans, and Xxxxxxx loans. Purdue presents its ISA program as an alternative to a direct PLUS loan or a private student loan.4 Direct PLUS loans have higher interest rates than the other federal student loan options and while the money goes to the student’s education, it is the parent who is the borrower and responsible for payments. Private student loans have the highest interest rates of all student loan options. While ISAs are similar to income-based student loan repayment, the fundamental differ- ence is that ISAs have no loan balance that the...
Institutional background. ‌ The federal judicial system is comprised of three court tiers. The first is the district or trial court. Federal defendants who contest their guilt are tried in one of 94 US district courts. Next, appeals are handled by one of 11 circuit or appellate courts. Lastly, the Supreme Court of the United States sits atop the system as the highest court in the land. Federal judges are appointed by the President for life, and cases are randomly allocated to judges within each district. As part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (Pub.L. 98–473, S. 1762, 98 Stat. 1976, October 12, 1984), Congress founded the United States Sen- tencing Commission (USSC). Prior to the Act, judges were free to sentence within a wide range allowed by law. The USSC was created in response to the perceived sentencing inequity that similarly culpable offenders would face when going before different judges; its principle job is to develop guidelines for sentencing convicted fed- eral offenders. Those guidelines take the form of a grid or table. One axis contains the severity of the offense, while the other contains the criminal history of the offender (see Figure A1). Upon a conviction, a judge calculates the offender’s position in the table and chooses a sentence within the given range. The ranges are fairly narrow, with the lower bound typically being about 75% of the upper bound. The guidelines became binding in 1987, at which point federal parole was abol- ished. Judges were able to depart from the guidelines, but any departure could be reversed on appeal. Over time, Congress grew concerned about the frequency of downward departures and took steps to reduce them in part of an omnibus crime xxxx, the PROTECT Act (Pub.L. 108–21, 000 Xxxx. 000, X. 151, April 30, 2003).2 In the years preceding the Act, departures were reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. The PROTECT Act instated a stricter de novo standard of review. It also strengthened reporting requirements and put extra limits on the grounds for departure. Furthermore, then Attorney General Xxxx Xxxxxxxx urged prosecutors to oppose downward departures (Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 2010). Roughly a year and a half later, in a watershed case, the US Supreme Court excised the portion of law making the guidelines mandatory upon judges (United States x. Xxxxxx , 543 U.S. 220 [2005]). As courts grappled with how much weight to afford the guide- lines, now formally advisory, the Court clarified that a sentence within the guide...

Related to Institutional background

  • Institutional and Controls The controls and requirements listed in the Department approved Site Management Plan ("SMP") including any and all Department approved amendments to the SMP are incorporated into and made part of this Environmental Easement. These controls and requirements apply to the use of the Controlled Property, run with the land, are binding on the Grantor and the Grantor's successors and assigns, and are enforceable in law or equity against any owner of the Controlled Property, any lessees and any person using the Controlled Property.

  • Institutional Certification Certification by the Submitting Institution that delineates, among other items, the appropriate research uses of the data and the uses that are specifically excluded by the relevant informed consent documents. Further information may be found here.

  • Institutional Arrangements 1. The AIA Council, as established by the AEM under the AIA Agreement, shall be responsible for the implementation of this Agreement.

  • Accredited Investor The Purchaser is an accredited investor as defined in Rule 501(a) of Regulation D promulgated under the Securities Act.

  • Background 1.1. The “Work” is the research article, review article, letter, clinical trial study, report, article, or other copyright work, as identified in the Copyright Letter and further detailed in Schedule 1: Details of the Work (including such form of the copyright work submitted to Xxxxxxx Science for publication pursuant to clause 4, below), but excluding (except where context otherwise requires) any diagrams, figures or illustration specifically identified to Xxxxxxx Science pursuant to clause 3.2, below.

  • Areas of Institutional Strength Current program areas of strength include:

  • INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 8.1

  • STATUTORY PENALTY FOR INADEQUATE QUALIFIED INVESTMENT Pursuant to Section 313.0275 of the TEXAS TAX CODE, in the event that the Applicant fails to make $10,000,000 of Qualified Investment, in whole or in part, during the Qualifying Time Period, the Applicant is liable to the State for a penalty. The amount of the penalty is the amount determined by: (i) multiplying the maintenance and operations tax rate of the school district for that tax year that the penalty is due by (ii) the amount obtained after subtracting (a) the Tax Limitation Amount identified in Section 2.4.B from (b) the Market Value of the property identified on the Appraisal District's records for the Tax Year the penalty is due. This penalty shall be paid on or before February 1 of the year following the expiration of the Qualifying Time Period and is subject to the delinquent penalty provisions of Section 33.01 of the TEXAS TAX CODE. The Comptroller may grant a waiver of this penalty in the event of Force Majeure which prevents compliance with this provision.

  • Contractor Certification regarding Boycotting Israel Pursuant to Chapter 2270, Texas Government Code, Contractor certifies Contractor (1) does not currently boycott Israel; and (2) will not boycott Israel during the Term of this Agreement. Contractor acknowledges this Agreement may be terminated and payment withheld if this certification is inaccurate.

  • Vendor Certification of Criminal History Texas Education Code Chapter 22 8 Texas Education Code Chapter 22 requires entities that contract with school districts to provide services to obtain criminal history record information regarding covered employees. Contractors must certify to the district that they have complied. Covered employees with disqualifying criminal histories are prohibited from serving at a school district pursuant to this law. DEFINITIONS Covered employees: Employees of a contractor or subcontractor who have or will have continuing duties related to the service to be performed at the District and have or will have direct contact with students. The District will be the final arbiter of what constitutes direct contact with students. Disqualifying criminal history: Any conviction or other criminal history information designated by the District, or one of the following offenses, if at the time of the offense, the victim was under 18 or enrolled in a public school: (a) a felony offense under Title 5, Texas Penal Code; (b) an offense for which a defendant is required to register as a sex offender under Chapter 62, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure; or (c) an equivalent offense under federal law or the laws of another state. Vendor certifies: NONE (Section A): None of the employees of Vendor and any subcontractors are covered employees, as defined above. If this box is checked, I further certify that Contractor has taken precautions or imposed conditions to ensure that the employees of Vendor and any subcontractor will not become covered employees. Contractor will maintain these precautions or conditions throughout the time the contracted services are provided under this procurement. OR SOME (Section B): Some or all of the employees of Vendor and any subcontractor are covered employees. If this box is checked, I further certify that: (1) Vendor has obtained all required criminal history record information regarding its covered employees. None of the covered employees has a disqualifying criminal history; (2) If Vendor receives information that a covered employee subsequently has a reported criminal history, Vendor will immediately remove the covered employee from contract duties and notify the purchasing entity in writing within 3 business days; (3) Upon request, Vendor will provide the purchasing entity with the name and any other requested information of covered employees so that the purchasing entity may obtain criminal history record information on the covered employees; (4) If the purchasing entity objects to the assignment of a covered employee on the basis of the covered employee's criminal history record information, Xxxxxx agrees to discontinue using that covered employee to provide services at the purchasing entity. Which option does Vendor certify? None Certification Regarding "Choice of Law" Terms with TIPS Members Vendor agrees that if any "Choice of Law" provision is included in any sales agreement/contract between Vendor and a TIPS Member, that clause must provide that the "Choice of Law" applicable to the sales agreement/contract between Vendor and TIPS Member shall be the state where the TIPS Member operates unless the TIPS Member expressly agrees otherwise. Any TIPS Sale Supplemental Agreement containing a "Choice of Law" clause that conflicts with these terms is rendered void and unenforceable. If Vendor disagrees, after this solicitation legally closes and TIPS begins evaluating Vendor's file, TIPS will provide Vendor with a draft Word Document version of the Vendor Agreement and will be instructed to include all requested negotiations as redline edits for TIPS consideration. Does Vendor agree? Yes

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