With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". it very seriously. It does strike us as being a dubious proposition that by filing a contempt motion a claimant can be positioned to recover an unlimited amount of compensatory damages from the United States without being bound by the strictures of either the Tucker Act or the Federal Tort Claims Act, which are express (but carefully limited) waivers by the United States of its sovereign immunity with respect to contract and tort claims. Absent an express waiver of sovereign immunity, money awards cannot be imposed against the United States. See United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212, 103 S.Ct. 2961, 2965, 77 L.Ed.2d 580 (1983); Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 280, 103 S.Ct. 1811, 1816, 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983). See also Barry v. Bowen, 884 F.2d 442, 443-44 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). There does not appear to be any express

A: holding that the united states is liable for interest only in the event of a clear statutory waiver of sovereign immunity
B: holding that district courts award of monetary sanctions for contempt violated the sovereign immunity of the united states but also reversing on other grounds
C: holding that sovereign immunity bars an attorneys lien against the united states
D: holding that the ats does not waive the united states sovereign immunity
B.