43 U.S.C. § 403

FINAL PRIORITIZATION OF ANCSA SELECTIONS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 43 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)In General.—Any Native Corporation that has not received its full entitlement or entered into a voluntary, negotiated settlement of final entitlement shall submit the final, irrevocable priorities of the Native Corporation—“(1) in the case of a Village, Group, or Urban Corporation entitlement, not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 10, 2004]; and“(2) in the case of a Regional Corporation entitlement, not later than 42 months after the date of enactment of this Act.“(b)Acreage Limitations.—The priorities submitted under subsection (a) shall not exceed land that is the greater of—“(1) not more than 125 percent of the remaining entitlement; or“(2) not more than 640 acres in excess of the remaining entitlement.“(c)Corrections.—“(1)In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the priorities submitted under subsection (a) may not be revoked, rescinded, or modified by the Native Corporation.“(2)Technical corrections.—Not later than 90 days after the date of receipt of a notification by the Secretary that there appears to be a technical error in the priorities, the Native Corporation may correct the technical error in accordance with any recommendations of, and in a manner prescribed by or acceptable to, the Secretary.“(d)Relinquishment.—“(1)In general.—As of the date on which the Native Corporation submits its final priorities under subsection (a)—“(A) any unprioritized, remaining selections of the Native Corporation—“(i) are relinquished, but any part of the selections may be reinstated for the purpose of correcting a technical error; and“(ii) have no further segregative effect; and“(B) all withdrawals under sections 11 and 16 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1610, 1615) under the relinquished selections are terminated.“(2)Records.—All relinquishments under paragraph (1) shall be included in Bureau of Land Management land records.“(e)Failure To Submit Priorities.—If a Native Corporation fails to submit priorities by the deadline specified in subsection (a)—“(1) with respect to a Native Corporation that has priorities on file with the Secretary, the Secretary—“(A) shall convey to the Native Corporation the remaining entitlement of the Native Corporation, as determined based on the most recent priorities of the Native Corporation on file with the Secretary and in accordance with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.); and“(B) may reject any selections not needed to fulfill the entitlement; or“(2) with respect to a Native Corporation that does not have priorities on file with the Secretary, the Secretary shall satisfy the entitlement by conveying land selected by the Secretary, in consultation with the appropriate Native Corporation, the Federal land managing agency with administrative jurisdiction over the land to be conveyed, and the State, that, to the maximum extent practicable, is—“(A) compact;“(B) contiguous to land previously conveyed to the Native Corporation; and“(C) consistent with the applicable preliminary Regional Conveyance and Survey Plan referred to in section 401.“(f)Plan of Conveyance.—“(1)In general.—The Secretary shall—“(A) identify any Native Corporation that does not have sufficient priorities on file;“(B) develop priorities for the Native Corporation in accordance with subsection (e); and“(C) provide to the Native Corporation a plan of conveyance based on the priorities developed under subparagraph (B).“(2)Finalized selections.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which the Secretary provides a plan of conveyance to the affected Village, Group, or Urban Corporation and the Regional Corporation, the Regional Corporation shall finalize any Regional selections that are in conflict with land selected by the Village, Group, or Urban Corporation that has not been prioritized by the deadline under subsection (a)(1).“(g)Dissolved or Lapsed Corporations.—“(1)(A) If a Native Corporation is lapsed or dissolved at the time final priorities are required to be filed under this section and does not have priorities on file with the Secretary, the Secretary shall establish a deadline for the filing of priorities that shall be one year from the provisions of notice of the deadline.“(B) To fulfill the notice requirement under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—“(i) publish notice of the deadline to a lapsed or dissolved Native Corporation in a newspaper of general circulation nearest the locality where the affected land is located; and“(ii) seek to notify in writing the last known shareholders of the lapsed or dissolved corporation.“(C) If a Native Corporation does not file priorities with the Secretary before the deadline set pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall notify Congress.“(2) If a Native Corporation with final priorities on file with the Bureau of Land Management is lapsed or dissolved, the United States—“(A) shall continue to administer the prioritized selected land under applicable law; but“(B) may reject any selections not needed to fulfill the lapsed or dissolved Native Corporation’s entitlement.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1940–1942 · leading case: West Coast Life Ins. Co. v. Merced Irr. Dist., 114 F.2d 654 (9th Cir. 1940).
West Coast Life Ins. Co. v. Merced Irr. Dist., 114 F.2d 654 (9th Cir. 1940). · cites it 2× “After the enactment of Section 36 of the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act, 43 U.S. C.A. § 403, an application was made on December 16, 1933 by the District to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation [hereinafter for convenience referred to as R.”
Lorber v. Vista Irr. Dist., 127 F.2d 628 (9th Cir. 1942). “After the enactment of Section 36 of the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act, 43 U.S. C.A. § 403, an application was made on October 18, 1933, by the District to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (commonly referred to as R.”
Texas Agric. Ass'n v. Hidalgo Cnty. Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. 1, 36 F. Supp. 314 (S.D. Tex. 1940). · cites it 2× “§ 616 (a), and 43 U.S. C.A. § 403 (3). The defendants Abrahams contend that the note did not create a new indebtedness but was simply an acknowledgment and refunding of an existing indebtedness; that when the District refinanced through R.”
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.