531 U.S. at 363, 121 S.Ct. 955. The Court has held that Congress may not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity based on powers enumerated in Article I. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 59 & 72, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996). To date, section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is the only recognized source of congressional power to abrogate a State’s immunity. Despite the language of 11 U.S.C. § 106(a), which attempts to abrogate the sovereign immunity of a governmental unit with respect to, inter alia, § 523, the holding of Seminole appears to render the abrogation without force. See Snyder v. Board of Regents University of Nebraska, 228 B.R. 712, 715-16. Schlossberg v. Maryland (In re Creative Goldsmiths of Wash., D.C., Inc.), 119 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). The court, therefore, accepts that Congress
holding that the eleventh amendment applies in  1981 litigation holding 11 usc  106a unconstitutional to the extent that it purports to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity holding that although congress expressed its intent to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity in 11 usc  106a it could not do so under seminole tribe holding that judgments for prospective relief that have an ancillary effect on the state treasury do not offend the eleventh amendment holding that  106a  b offend the eleventh amendment