alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNumerical Simulation of Low-Density Shock-Wave InteractionsComputational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) numerical simulations of low-density shock-wave interactions for an incident shock impinging on a cylinder have been performed. Flow-field density gradient and surface pressure and heating define the type of interference pattern and corresponding perturbations. The maximum pressure and heat transfer level and location for various interaction types (i.e., shock-wave incidence with respect to the cylinder) are presented. A time-accurate solution of the Type IV interference is employed to demonstrate the establishment and the steadiness of the low-density flow interaction.Document ID19990063478Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsGlass, Christopher E.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1999Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And Heat TransferReport/Patent NumberL-17878NASA/TM-1999-209358NAS 1.15:209358Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 242-80-01-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19990063478.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Dorothy H. Golwynne, Respondent, v. Henry A. Golwynne, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Van Yoorhis, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6078-6079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01791]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DoD-2013-OS-0011]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to delete a System of Records.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency is deleting a system of records 
notice in its existing inventory of record systems subject to the 
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective on March 1, 2013 unless 
comments are received which result in a contrary determination. 
Comments will be accepted on or before February 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by any of the following methods:
    * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    * Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center 
Drive, East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general 
policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is 
to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet 
at http://

[[Page 6079]]

www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any 
personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jody Sinkler, DLA FOIA/Privacy Act 
Office, Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DGA, 8725 John J. 
Kingman Road, Suite 1644, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221, or by phone at 
(703) 767-5045.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Defense Logistics Agency's systems of 
records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as 
amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available 
from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The proposed 
deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act 
of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a 
new or altered system report.

    Dated: January 24, 2013.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
Deletion:
S900.20 CA
    Workforce Composition, Workload, and Productivity Records (December 
6, 1996, 61 FR 64709).

Reason:
    Records are covered by an existing DoD-wide Privacy Act system of 
records identified as DMDC 02 DoD, entitled ``Defense Enrollment 
Eligibility Reporting Systems (DEERS).'' Therefore, S900.20 CA, 
Workforce Composition, Workload, and Productivity Records can be 
deleted.

[FR Doc. 2013-01791 Filed 1-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
#### Frances G. Amella et al., Individually and as Stockholders of Brooklyn Edison Company, Inc., Appellants, v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Respondent. Jerome Tanenbaum, Individually and as Sole Surviving Trustee of the Estate of Johanna Tanenbaum, Deceased, et al., Individually and as Stockholders in Those Capacities of Brooklyn Edison Company, Inc., Appellants, v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Respondent.

'Plaintiffs are not in position to question the fairness of the merger plan, either as allegedly depriving them of elements of value pertaining to their shares of stock by reason of the matters alleged in the complaints, or otherwise, after having accepted payment for their shares at the $135 provided by the plan, or in the amount arrived at by the appraisers. They could not accept the benefit of the merger plan and, at the same time, attack its validity, regardless of whether the appraisers had jurisdiction to take into account the matters alleged in the complaints in evaluating such shares. The orders dismissing the complaints and the judgments entered thereon are unanimously affirmed, with costs, without passing upon the other questions involved. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 210

 205

 210

 212

 221

 213

 217

 214

 211

 210

 208

 203

 217

 209

 210

 215

 206

 208

 222

 226

 239

 243

 248

 240

 237

 237

 256

 258

 256

 245

 245

 194

 194

 196

 186

 202

 206

 202

 203

 200

 198

 197

 199

 201

 202

 190

 182

 196

 200

 208

 206

 219

 219

 223

 222

 219

 207

 215

 225

 224

 223

 224

 198

 199

 201

 201

 207

 209

 211

 209

 206

 205

 201

 201

 206

 205

 204

 202

 202

 203

 212

 219

 224

 226

 233

 231

 228

 228

 231

 237

 235

 237

 237

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2009 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 4, 2010

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
Exhibit 10.3


 





Glenn Fuhrman


c/o Virtru PE LLC


640 Park Avenue, 11th Floor


New York, New York 10065


 


May 15, 2021


 


This letter is to confirm the undersigned’s
commitment that, through July 1, 2022 if funds are needed by Ajax I (the “Company”) and upon request by the Company, the
undersigned will provide loans of up to an aggregate of $991,550.00 to the Company. These loans will be non-interest bearing, unsecured
and will be repaid upon the consummation of a business combination. The undersigned understands that if the Company does not consummate
a business combination (as described in the Company’s prospectus, dated October 27, 2020), all amounts loaned to the Company hereunder
will be forgiven except to the extent that the Company has funds available to it outside of its trust account established in connection
with the Company’s initial public offering.


 


	 	/s/ Glenn Fuhrman
	 	Glenn Fuhrman
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MIGUEL A. ENRIQUEZ

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2320

[ October 17, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Jose p h George Marx

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502015CF008949

.

Miguel A. Enriquez, Mayo, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, C IKLIN

, and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 833.44

 833.93

 834.40

 835.00

 836.47

 835.28

 836.67

 837.44

 838.10

 838.24

 838.00

 837.78

 837.48

 837.10

 837.08

 837.58

 838.04

 838.86

 839.52

 840.23

 840.62

 840.69

 840.63

 840.52

 840.38

 840.44

 840.24

 839.94

 840.29

 840.92

 840.54

 41.09

 41.66

 42.21

 42.92

 44.69

 43.26

 44.94

 45.88

 46.70

 46.87

 46.57

 46.30

 45.93

 45.46

 45.44

 46.05

 46.62

 47.65

 48.48

 49.39

 49.89

 49.98

 49.91

 49.76

 49.58

 49.66

 49.40

 49.02

 49.47

 50.28

 49.79

STORAGE

+0.55

+0.57

+0.55

+0.71

+1.77

-1.44

+1.68

+0.94

+0.82

+0.18

-0.30

-0.27

-0.37

-0.47

-0.02

+0.62

+0.57

+1.03

+0.84

+0.91

+0.50

+0.09

-0.08

-0.14

-0.18

+0.08

-0.26

-0.39

+0.45

+0.81

-0.49

CHANGE

389

318

305

381

6,707

3,161

1,641

1,095

950

721

491

505

476

405

390

408

300

532

435

477

559

642

565

533

512

643

474

410

421

435

359

INFLOW

 20

 20

 20

 20

 5,233

 3,265

 174

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 11

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

SPILL

 89

 10

 5

 5

 581

 619

 619

 596

 516

 607

 617

 616

 638

 617

 393

 90

 5

 5

 5

 5

 291

 584

 589

 589

 589

 589

 589

 588

 176

 8

 589

OUTLET

 5

 1

 1

 0

 0

 0

 2

 3

 3

 5

 6

 6

 5

 4

 4

 2

 4

 4

 4

 4

 4

 3

 5

 6

 4

 5

 5

 6

 8

 8

 7

C.F.S.

 .13

 .02

 .03

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .06

 .08

 .07

 .13

 .16

 .15

 .12

 .10

 .11

 .06

 .11

 .09

 .11

 .09

 .09

 .08

 .13

 .14

 .09

 .13

 .12

 .15

 .19

 .20

 .17

INCHES

 .00

 .04

 .00

 .24

 2.08

 .35

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .03

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .04

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-ORLAND PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2001 RUN DATE: 01/28/2002

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +9.26 25,640 11,819 9,038 124 3.11 2.78

ACRE-FEET +9,260 50,857 23,443 17,927 246

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800 HOURS.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 17,927

OUTLET

TOTAL

 23,443

 41,370

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 2.78

JULY 1, 2000 16.94

 40.55

STONY GORGE RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 20, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41291

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MELISSA CHRISTINE LORK,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-44-ALL-RHC

--------------------

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Melissa Christine Lork pleaded guilty to possession with

intent to distribute less than 50 grams of methamphetamine but

reserved the right appeal the district court’s denial of her

motion to suppress evidence seized from her vehicle during a

traffic stop. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress,

we accept the district court’s findings of fact unless they are

clearly erroneous, but its ultimate conclusion as to the
No. 04-41291

-2-

constitutionality of the law enforcement action is reviewed

de novo. United States v. Orozco, 191 F.3d 578, 581 (5th Cir.

1999). 

Lork argues that the district court erred in finding that

the police officer acted reasonably in stopping her because the

evidence did not establish that she was speeding. However, the

relevant inquiry is whether the police officer had probable cause

to believe a traffic violation had occurred. Whren v. United

States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996). Based on the testimony and the

police officer’s training and experience, we conclude that he did

have probable cause to stop Lork for speeding.

Lork also argues that the police officer impermissibly

extended her detention. However, a detectable odor of marijuana

emanating from a vehicle provides probable cause for the search

of a vehicle. See United States v. Reed, 882 F.2d 147, 149

(5th Cir. 1989). Because the police officer testified that he

detected this odor immediately upon approaching Lork’s vehicle,

any questions regarding the length of detention or consent to the

search are irrelevant. Lork also argues that the police officer

had no training in the smell of marijuana. Based on the police

officer’s extensive training and experience in narcotics, as well

as his testimony that he was familiar with the odor of marijuana,

we conclude that his detection of this odor provided probable

cause for the search of the vehicle. 
No. 04-41291

-3-

Although Lork submitted a FED. R. APP. P. 28(j) letter

referencing the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v.

Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), she did not argue any sentencing

error in her briefs, nor do we see any effect of Booker on her

sentence. 

AFFIRMED.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 2,344.97

 2,344.55

 2,344.11

 2,343.78

 2,343.34

 2,343.02

 2,342.82

 2,342.70

 2,342.57

 2,342.41

 2,342.30

 2,342.08

 2,341.91

 2,341.75

 2,341.55

 2,341.39

 2,341.14

 2,340.86

 2,340.60

 2,340.32

 2,340.08

 2,339.77

 2,339.51

 2,339.28

 2,339.08

 2,338.87

 2,338.68

 2,338.47

 2,338.22

 2,338.03

 2,337.77

 2,059.0

 2,052.8

 2,046.3

 2,041.5

 2,035.0

 2,030.3

 2,027.4

 2,025.6

 2,023.7

 2,021.4

 2,019.8

 2,016.6

 2,014.1

 2,011.8

 2,008.9

 2,006.6

 2,002.9

 1,998.9

 1,995.1

 1,991.0

 1,987.6

 1,983.1

 1,979.3

 1,976.0

 1,973.1

 1,970.1

 1,967.4

 1,964.4

 1,960.8

 1,958.1

 1,954.4

STORAGE

-6.7

-6.2

-6.5

-4.8

-6.5

-4.7

-2.9

-1.8

-1.9

-2.3

-1.6

-3.2

-2.5

-2.3

-2.9

-2.3

-3.6

-4.1

-3.8

-4.1

-3.5

-4.5

-3.7

-3.3

-2.9

-3.0

-2.7

-3.0

-3.6

-2.7

-3.7

CHANGE

2,224

2,168

2,000

1,780

1,424

1,821

2,456

2,744

2,743

2,429

2,252

1,650

1,874

1,594

1,538

1,607

1,599

1,306

1,372

1,029

1,207

940

1,112

1,148

1,211

1,152

1,090

1,092

956

1,031

1,005

INFLOW

 4,179

 4,179

 4,179

 4,179

 4,179

 4,127

 3,796

 3,520

 3,601

 3,530

 2,955

 3,179

 2,999

 2,673

 2,898

 2,686

 3,317

 3,253

 3,160

 2,950

 2,870

 3,081

 2,871

 2,710

 2,533

 2,580

 2,333

 2,484

 2,659

 2,279

 2,754

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 1,281

 1,102

 1,025

 0

 445

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 117

 4

 61

 43

 52

 60

 133

 107

 99

 77

 107

 90

 124

 94

 107

 94

 115

 102

 111

 123

 89

 115

 131

 110

 131

 93

 131

 127

 105

 126

 122

C.F.S.

 .27

 .01

 .14

 .10

 .12

 .14

 .31

 .25

 .23

 .18

 .25

 .21

 .29

 .22

 .25

 .22

 .27

 .24

 .26

 .29

 .21

 .27

 .31

 .26

 .31

 .22

 .31

 .30

 .25

 .30

 .29

INCHES

 .00

 .41

 .04

 .29

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2007 TRINITY LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: June 26, 2007

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -111.3 49,554 98,693 0 3,853 3,100 7.28 .76

ACRE-FEET -111,300 98,290 195,758 0 7,642 6,149

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 195,758

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 7,642

 203,400

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .76

JULY 1, 2006 21.07

 2,065.6

Table 4

(1) (1)
Exhibit 10.3





 


 


GTY
Investors, LLC


 


November 7, 2018


 


GTY Technology Holdings Inc.


1180 North Town Center Drive


Suite 100


Las Vegas, Nevada 89144


 


		Re:	Convertible Promissory Note



 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to that certain convertible
promissory note, dated as of August 8, 2018 (the “Note”), issued by GTY Technology Holdings Inc., a Cayman
Islands exempted company (the “Maker”), to GTY Investors, LLC or its registered assigns or successors
in interest (the “Payee”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings assigned to
them in the Note.


 


The Payee hereby irrevocably waives, until
the earlier of (A) May 1, 2019, and (B) the closing date of a Business Combination, (i) the Maker’s obligation under the
Note to repay all unpaid principal under the Note on the earlier of (x) November 1, 2018 and (y) the effective date of a Business
Combination; and (ii) any Event of Default existing under the Note as of the date hereof.


 


This letter agreement (this “Agreement”)
shall be effective as of November 1, 2018.


 


This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement
and understanding of the parties hereto in respect of its subject matter and supersedes all prior understandings, agreements, or
representations by or among the parties hereto, written or oral, to the extent they relate in any way to the subject matter hereof
or the transactions contemplated hereby.


 


This Agreement may not be amended, modified
or waived as to any particular provision, except by a written instrument executed by the parties hereto.


 


No party hereto may assign either this Agreement
or any of its rights, interests, or obligations hereunder without the prior written approval of the other party. Any purported
assignment in violation of this paragraph shall be void and ineffectual and shall not operate to transfer or assign any interest
or title to the purported assignee.


 


This Agreement, the entire relationship
of the parties hereto, and any litigation between the parties (whether grounded in contract, tort, statute, law or equity) shall
be governed by, construed in accordance with, and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of New York, without giving effect
to its choice of law principles.


 


[Signature page follows]


 






     


     


    

 


	 


 


	 	 	Very truly yours, 
	 	 	 
	 	 	GTY INVESTORS, LLC
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By: 	/s/ Harry L. You
	 	 	 	Name: Harry L. You	 
	 	 	 	Title: Manager	 


 


 


	AGREED AND ACCEPTED BY:
	 
	GTY TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS INC.
	 
	 
	By: 	/s/ Harry L. You
	 	Name: Harry L. You	 
	 	Title: President & CFO
### §1405. Effective date of plan; joint resolution of disapproval

#### (a) Original plan

The plan prepared by the Secretary shall become effective, and he shall take immediate action to implement the plan for the use or distribution of such judgment funds, at the end of the sixty-day period (excluding days on which either the House of Representatives or the Senate is not in session because of an adjournment of more than three calendar days to a day certain) beginning on the day such plan is submitted to the Congress, unless during such sixty-day period a joint resolution is enacted disapproving such plans.

#### (b) Proposed legislation and report to Congress following Congressional disapproval

Within thirty calendar days after the date of enactment of a joint resolution disapproving a plan, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress proposed legislation, together with a report thereon, authorizing use or distribution of such funds.

#### (c) Successor plan previously withdrawn or amended prior to Congressional action; consent to amendments

Within the sixty-day period and before the adoption of any resolution disapproving a plan, the Secretary may withdraw or amend such plan: Provided, That any amendments affecting the division of an award between two or more beneficiary entities shall be subject to the consent of these entities as provided in section 1402(d) of this title. Any such amended plan shall become valid at the end of a sixty-day period beginning on the day such amendment is submitted to the Congress, unless during such sixty-day period, a joint resolution is enacted disapproving such plan as amended.

#### (d) Resubmission of successor plan within prescribed period following withdrawal of plan

Once a plan is withdrawn before the end of a sixty-day period, the Secretary has until the expiration of the original one-year deadline to resubmit a plan to Congress. Such a plan shall become valid at the end of a sixty-day period beginning on the day such new plan is submitted to the Congress, unless during such sixty-day period, a joint resolution is enacted disapproving such plan.

#### (e) Recomputation of sixty-day period from date of introduction of joint resolution of disapproval; reextension restriction

Upon the introduction of the first such resolution of disapproval in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, the sixty-day period shall be recomputed from the date of such introduction and shall not again be extended.

(Pub. L. 93–134, §5, Oct. 19, 1973, 87 Stat. 468; Pub. L. 97–458, §3, Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2513.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1983—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97–458, §3(a), substituted "unless during such sixty-day period a joint resolution is enacted" for "unless during such sixty-day period either House adopts a resolution disapproving such plans".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 97–458, §3(b), substituted "date of enactment of a joint resolution disapproving a plan" for "date of adoption of a resolution disapproving a plan".

Subsecs. (c) to (e). Pub. L. 97–458, §3(c), added subsecs. (c) to (e).
#### § 2091.9-1 Alaska Native selections.

The segregation and opening of lands authorized for selection and selected by Alaska Natives under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1601 *et seq.*), are covered by part 2650 of this title.
### **CHAPTER 23—DEVELOPMENT OF TRIBAL MINERAL RESOURCES**

Sec.
2101.
Definitions.
2102.
Minerals Agreements.
2103.
Secretary's determination on Minerals Agreements.
2104.
Secretary's review of prior Minerals Agreements.
2105.
Effect of other provisions.
2106.
Assistance to tribes or individuals during Minerals Agreement negotiations.
2107.
Regulations; consultation with Indian organizations; pending agreements.
2108.
Tribal right to develop mineral resources.