C.F.R. » Title 25 » CHAPTER I—BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER H—LAND AND WATER › PART 183—USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND AND SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE LEASE FUND › Subpart C—Lease Fund Disposition

25 C.F.R. § 183.11

What documents must the Tribe submit to request money from the Lease Fund?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

To request a distribution of income from the Lease Fund, the Tribe must submit to us all of the following documents:

(a) A certified copy of a duly enacted resolution of the Tribal Council requesting a distribution from the Lease Fund;

(b) A pro forma budget for each identified economic development project and a program budget for each identified community development project, approved by the Tribal Council, showing precisely how the Tribe will spend the money;

(c) Supporting documentation for the budgets required by paragraph (b) of this section, and

(d) A certification stating that the Tribe will use the funds in accordance with budgets submitted under this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2005–2011 · leading case: Osage Tribe of Indians v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 629 (Fed. Cl. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Osage Tribe of Indians v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 629 (Fed. Cl. 2006). · cites it 6× “See 25 C.F.R. § 183.11 (a)(2). The 1974 Regulations also restricted the highest posted price and offered price terms used to determine royalty value to those posted or offered by a “major purchaser” in the Kansas-Oklahoma area.”
Osage Tribe of Indians v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 390 (Fed. Cl. 2010). · cites it 8× “” 25 C.F.R. § 183.11 (a)(2) (1975) (1974 Regulations) (emphasis added).”
Osage Tribe of Indians v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 322 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 3× “25 C.F.R. § 183.11 (a)(2) (1975), J.A. at Tab 10.”
Osage Tribe of Indians v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2010). · cites it 2× “During the Tranche One trial months, the specific regulation that governed this calculation was the 1974 version of 25 C.F.R. § 183.11 (a)(2) (1974 Regulations), which provided that a royalty was to be based on “the actual selling price, or the highest posted or offered price by…”
Osage Tribe of Indians v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 345 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “” In an effort to determine royalty values in accordance with the law of Osage II — and as a result of defendant’s failure to collect and maintain data required of it under regulations that were in effect from January 1981 to September 12, 1990, 25 C.F.R. § 183.11 (a)(2) (1975)…”
— 25 C.F.R. § 183.11(a)(2) — 1 case
Osage Tribe of Indians v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 629 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “See 25 C.F.R. § 183.11 (a)(2). The 1974 Regulations also restricted the highest posted price and offered price terms used to determine royalty value to those posted or offered by a “major purchaser” in the Kansas-Oklahoma area.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.