indication that they were designed to convey rights on depositors of presenting banks.” Id. at 1361. 3 . The Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in Cherokee Nation in the context of a contract case and concluded that the presence of sufficient unrestricted lump-sum appropriations (not specifically appropriated for the program in issue) to meet the government’s contractual obligation qualified as available appropriations. See 543 U.S. at 641, 125 S.Ct. 1172; see also Oglala Sioux, 194 F.3d at 1376, 1378 (finding available appropriations limited to $95,823,000 because the $1.5 billion general appropriation act expressly limited payments for contract support costs to this amount); Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery Cent. Sch. Dist. v. United States, 48 F.3d 1166, 1171 (Fed.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Most of the cases Greenlee County cites
holding that congress suspended operation of statute by restricting use of appropriated funds holding that this court has power under 28 usc  1651 to issue all writs necessary and appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law holding that by knocking out  506 the hanging paragraph leaves the parties to their contractual entitlements governed by state law holding that money appropriated by congress for entitlements under other sections of the impact aid act were not available appropriations for a program that provided aid to school districts financially burdened by federal ownership of real property holding that the validity of government officials claim of absolute immunity for statement allegedly defamatory under state law must be judged by federal standards to be formulated by the courts in the absence of legislative action by congress