V 1999) (emphasis added). This statutory provision allowed both federal district courts and the Court of Federal Claims to hear “the full range of cases previously subject to review in either system.” 142 Cong. Rec. SI1849 (daily ed. Sept. 30, 1996) (statement of Sen. Levin). Emery, 264 F.3d at 1078-79. Goodwill asserts that jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal ques tion jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C. § 2201-02 (declaratory judgments), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed July 25, 2005; Plaintiffs Hearing Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, p. 2. Neither section 1381 nor sections 2201-2202 constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity. Fostvedt, 978 F.2d at 1203 (<HOLDING>); Amalgamated Sugar, 664 F.2d at 822 (stating
holding that statutes conferring general jurisdiction including 28 usc  1331 do not waive sovereign immunity holding that 28 usc  1331 does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity holding that  ijinguistic consistency  required that the same arising under test be applied to the jurisdictional statute for patent claims 28 usc  1338a as is used for the general federal jurisdiction statute 28 usc  1331 holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity holding that 28 usc  1331 which states that district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the constitution laws or treaties of the united states does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity