Case 3 definition

Case 3. , in relation to a bank, means Case 3 set out in section 6A(4) of that Act; “Case 4”, in relation to a bank, means Case 4 set out in section 6A(5) of that Act; “Case 5”—
Case 3. ' (single large transaction) means any case where, in respect of any transaction, payment is to be made by or to the applicant for business of the amount of fifteen thousand euro (€15,000) or more, and, where an occasional transaction involves a money transfer or remittance in accordance with regulation 7(11), the payment amount is one thousand euro (€1,000) or more;
Case 3 means any case where, in respect of any one-off transaction, payment is to be made by or to the applicant for business in the amount of Belize twenty thousand dollars (BZ$20,000) or its equivalent in foreign currency, or more.

Examples of Case 3 in a sentence

  • Example Case 3: TRA approval cycle Situation: Based on project plan and deliverables, the Consultant is required to submit a report.

  • The goal of Use Case 3 is to provide Participant resiliency during unexpected emergency events (“Emergency Events”) to the extent possible.

  • Bed Holds – Non-Medical Absence Case 3 A resident enters the hospital and is expected to stay longer than 30 days.

  • Item Field Name Description COVID Use Case 3 Medications • Repeat Medications • Medications Issued Use Case 3: Population Stratification.

  • The five scenarios contemplated in this report are: Case 1 – Original design conditions from 1992 EIS Case 2 – Existing conditions Case 3 – Existing conditions with additional LAD and snowmaking Case 4 – Existing conditions with additional water treatment Case 5 – Existing conditions with Boe Ranch LAD These scenarios were evaluated to represent a range of possibilities in terms of water management at the East Boulder Mine.


More Definitions of Case 3

Case 3 means circumstances where a UK parent financial holding company or UK parent mixed financial holding company has a subsidiary institution which is a PRA-authorised person;
Case 3. Multiple agents, complex network, static activation setting. Agent 3 Agent 5 Agent 2 Suppose two more agents are added to the population creating an interaction relation as shown in Figure 4.4. Agent 1 Agent 4 Agent 6 Figure 4.4: Interaction relation for Case 3. Agent 3 has the potential to interact with both Agent 1 and Agent 5 and 6. Agent 1 is disconnected from agent 5 and 6 and can never interact with them. In this case, what information does Agent 1 need in order to maximize expected reward? Clearly, the most useful information in Case 3 is the same as Case 4 – even with the addition of 2 agents. What this case points out is that it is not just the number of agents that impacts what information an agent needs, but also the interaction topology. Suppose Agent 1 had global aggregate information – the density of states overall the agents in the population. Could this information help? Interestingly enough, it would not help Agent 1 in maximizing its reward, since Agent 1 only interacts with its neighbors. An MLE based on the global density would possibly lead Agent 1 to a wrong decision. In this case, information about more agents leads to less reward than information about fewer agents. Case 4: Multiple neighbors, complex topology, non-static activation setting. Let us extend the system from Case 3 by allowing any two neighboring agents to play the coordination game – this might not include Agent 1. Once again let us consider the situation from Agent 1s perspective. Unfortunately, this situation is more complicated than the previous one. Even with fixed aggregate state information Agent 1 will not be able to obtain high reward. The problem is that any fixed information will not reflect the changes that could possibly take place to Agent 3s state. Due to both the structure of the interaction relation and the fact that any two agents can now take part in a game, fixed aggregate information has reduced benefit because it could quickly go out of date as the neighbors change state. To solve this problem Agent 1 must obtain dynamic information – information at each timestep. This can still be aggregate information though.
Case 3. A Funding Organisation has to revoke after the ranking lists were fixed In case that a Funding Organisation has to revoke and cannot fund its respective national/regional share of the related Transnational Project(s) for one or several Joint Call(s), the other Parties shall convene a meeting of the General Assembly to discuss the possibility to replace and fund the respective final recipients of the concerned Transnational Project(s). If the above mentioned mitigation approach is not sufficient and a Highly Detrimental Situation might occur, the Parties agree to follow the procedure mentioned in 7.3.5 of this Consortium Agreement.
Case 3. 31: The dimension was “5’-0” MIN” from the back of guardrail to the center of railroad signal support is now revised to “5’-0” MIN” from face of guardrail to the front edge of the railroad signal support. Note 3, was – “The slope from the edge of the shoulder into the face of the guardrail cannot exceed 10H : 1V when the face of the guardrail is less than 12’ – 0” from the edge of the shoulder.” is revised to read: “The slope from the edge of the shoulder into the face of the guardrail cannot be steeper than 10H : 1V when the face of the guardrail is less than 12’ – 0” from the edge of the shoulder. The slope from the edge of the shoulder into the face of the guardrail cannot be steeper than 6H : 1V when the guardrail is 12’ – 0” or more from the edge of the shoulder.” C-20.18
Case 3. In case of in-sufficient funds In case the amount available is less than the package cost, the hospital shall follow the norms of deposit / running bills. Steps from 1.1 to 1.7
Case 3. A obtains σˆB and B obtains σ∗ . This means that A has already sent C to B, and then B runs the Resolve protocol before A aborted. – Case 4: Both A and B obtain AT . This means that A has already sent C to B, and then runs the Abort protocol at some point before B resolved. – Case 5: A obtains σB and B obtains AT . This means that A has received σB and then runs the Abort protocol before B resolved. If this case happens, we claim that A misbehaves in the protocol. – Case 6: A obtains AT and B obtains σA. This means that A runs the Abort protocol after sending σA to B. If this case happens, we also claim that A misbehaves. A – Case 7: A obtains AT and B obtains σ∗ . This means that both A and B successfully runs the Abort and Resolve protocol, respectively. If this case happens, we claim that the T misbehaves. – Case 8: A obtains σˆB and B obtains AT . Due to the fact that B obtains the abort-token only when A has obtained the abort-token, this case will not happen if the T is honest. Therefore, we also claim that the T misbehaves in this case. – Case 9: A obtains σˆB and B obtains σA. If this case happens, we claim that A misbehaves because B cannot obtain σA unless A has obtained σB successfully. If the first four cases occur, the protocol achieves the fairness since both parties obtain either the signature of each other, or the abort token. Since the chameleon signature is not universal verifiable, σB means nothing if B does not perform the denial protocol of chameleon signatures. On the other hand, A is not allowed to run the Abort protocol after having received σB. Similarly, A is not allowed to run the Abort protocol after sending σA to B. Moreover, A should never send σA to B unless A has obtained σB successfully. That is, if the case 5, or case 6, or case 9 occurs, it is a proof that A misbehaves. If the case 7 or 8 occurs, then T must be accountable for his misbehavior.
Case 3. Case 4", "Case 5", "Case 6", "Case 7" and "Line of Credit Fee", by substituting the following definitions in lieu thereof and by adding the terms "Motor Sports Division", "Motor Sports Division Report", "Second Amendment", and "Second Amendment Closing Date", and the following definitions thereof, each in the appropriate alphabetical order: