method. 2. Our analysis, however, does not end here. In addition to examining the state’s statutes and constitution, Atascadero instructs us to determine whether the state “otherwise waiv[ed] its immunity to suit in the context of a particular federal program.” Atascadero, 473 U.S. at 238 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 3142. Like the first type of waiver, this method requires an unequivocal indication that the state intends to consent to be sued in federal court. See id. at 238 n and several others, including the Supreme Court, have concluded that, “in the absence of explicit consent by state statute or constitutional provision, a state may consent to a federal court’s jurisdiction through its affirmative conduct.” Georgia Dep’t of Revenue v. Burke (In re Burke), 146 F.3d 1313, 1318 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 2410, —
holding that state waived its eleventh amendment immunity by filing proofs of claim in bankruptcy proceedings holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar a bankruptcy court from issuing a money judgment against a state under the bankruptcy code holding that state did not waive eleventh amendment immunity by removing case to federal court holding that state defendant waived eleventh amendment immunity to a federal claim by removing to federal court holding that when a state  files a proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding the state waives its eleventh amendment immunity with regard to the bankruptcy estates claims that arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the states claim