opinion: J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:
  Substantially for the reasons thoroughly set forth by Judge Kelleher in his Memorandum Decision and Order dated July 30, 1981 (ER 41-54), we affirm the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint.
  The district court dismissed the action (and three others not on appeal) against Amerace, plaintiff’s employer, seeking to recover withheld federal and state income taxes. In doing so, it assessed attorney’s fees of $2,000.00 against Callow for filing the suit in bad faith and for purposes of vexation and harassment. The district court further found Callow to be the “ringleader” of the group of taxpayer dissidents.
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees. An attorney’s fee award was appropriate under the facts and the “inherent powers” of the court. Alyeska Pipeline Service v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 259, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 1622, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Pierce Packing Co., 669 F.2d 605, 609 (9th Cir. 1982).
  The claim that federal reserve notes are not valid money, presented under a variety of theories, has been rejected by every court considering the claim. See, e.g., Stonecipher v. Bray, 653 F.2d 398 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1006, 71 L.Ed.2d 297 (1982); United States v. Carlson, 617 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1010, 101 S.Ct. 564, 66 L.Ed.2d 468 (1981); United States v. Smith, 484 F.2d 8 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 978, 94 S.Ct. 1566, 39 L.Ed.2d 874 (1974); Eagle v. Kenai Peninsula Burough, 489 F.Supp. 138 (D.Alaska, 1980); Rap v. Peper, 80-1 U.S. Tax Cases § 9204 (D.Alaska, 1979); Chandler v. Perini Power Constructors, Inc., 520 F.Supp. 1152 (D.N.H.1981). The award of attorney’s fees was an appropriate deterrent to future frivolous suits.
  The express findings that Callow acted in bad faith and that he was the ringleader are supported in the record and are not clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
  Amerace seeks a further award of attorney’s fees and costs on this appeal. Fed.R.App.P. 38; 28 U.S.C. § 1912. Callow does not raise the frivolous federal reserve note issue on this appeal. He challenges only the fee award. Awarding fees under the court’s inherent power is somewhat unusual and we are not persuaded that a finding of frivolity is justified. Accordingly, no fees will be allowed on this appeal. Amerace will recover only single costs on this appeal.
  The judgment of the district court is
  AFFIRMED.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the court's ruling on an issue arising out of an alternative dispute resolution process (ADR, settlement conference, role of mediator or arbitrator, etc.) favor the appellant?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".