First Citizens Bank & Trust Company Inc. v. George N. Spirakis

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1914
FIRST CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY INC.,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
and
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, a/k/a Federal Reserve Board,
Third Party Defendants - Appellees,
v.
GEORGE N. SPIRAKIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:11-cv-02895-RBH)
Submitted: February 22, 2013 Decided: March 15, 2013
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George N. Spirakis, SPIRAKIS AND HAAR, Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina; Sam G. Stathos, PATRICK & STATHOS, LLC, Surfside
Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stuart F. Delery, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Mark B. Stern, Jeffrey E. Sandberg,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; William

-- 1 of 3 --

2
N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
George N. Spirakis appeals the district court’s order
dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his claim
that the United States Department of the Treasury and the
Federal Reserve violated his rights to equal protection and due
process by declining to provide him financial assistance under
the Troubled Asset Relief Program. We have carefully reviewed
the parties’ briefs and the joint appendix and find no legal or
factual basis to reverse the district court’s conclusion that
Congress has not waived its sovereign immunity with respect to
money damage awards arising from agency action pursuant to the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, 12 U.S.C.A.
§§ 5201-5261 (West Supp. 2012). Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. First Citizens Bank &
Trust Co. v. Spirakis, No. 4:11-cv-02895-RBH (D.S.C. May 30,
2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --