v. United States, 114 Fed.Cl. 226, 232-36 (2014) (finding jurisdiction existed over claim for breach of confidential informant agreement). 6. Plaintiffs Claims Based on the Constitution and Other Statutes Plaintiffs constitutional claims also must fail for want of jurisdiction. The court liberally construes plaintiffs scattered references to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and to the Sixth Amendment, Compl. at 54, as allegations that federal officials violated these constitutional protections, see id. at 2 (alleging “wrongful violations of [the] United States Constitution”). But, neither constitutional provision is money-mandating and, thus, neither can be a source of jurisdiction for this court. Winston v. United States, 465 Fed.Appx. 960, 961 (Fed.Cir.2012) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Collins v. United States, 67 F.3d 284, 288
holding that claims arising under the sixth amendment fall outside the jurisdiction of the court of federal claims holding that declaratory judgments fall outside the scope of the court of claims jurisdiction holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding that the court lacks jurisdiction over sixth amendment claims because the sixth amendment is not moneymandating holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute