in which appropriated funds cannot be obligated.” Core Concepts, 327 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 805, 157 L.Ed.2d 693 (2003). That requirement has been interpreted, however, “to mean that, when an issue arises under the non-appropriated funds doctrine, the Court of Federal Claims must exercise jurisdiction absent a clear expression by Congress that it intended to separate the agency from general revenues.” Id. (quotation omitted). The Federal Circuit has also held that the Federal Reserve is not susceptible to suit in this court because it does not operate with appropriated funds. Denkler v. United States, 782 F.2d 1003, 1005 (Fed.Cir.1986); see also Research Triangle Inst. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 132 F.3d 985, 989 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Defendant contends that, “Community’s sole
holding that the lanham act did not waive states sovereign immunity holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity holding that the tucker act does not waive the governments sovereign immunity for federal reserve activities holding that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity holding that an act of legislature may be required to waive sovereign immunity