* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### AUG 19 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

LAURENCE EUSTELLE WOLFF,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee. No. 02-8115 (D.C. No. 02-CV-89-D) (D. Wyoming)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , Chief Judge, BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge, and HARTZ , Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Lawrence E. Wolff brought this action in Wyoming st ate court in an effort to challenge the validity of federal tax ass essments and resulting liens.-2-

The government removed the action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and the district court dismissed the acti on based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. We exercise jurisdiction over Mr. Wolff’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

BACKGROUND Employees of the Internal Revenue Service filed fiv e notices of federal tax liens against Mr. Wolff in the Campbell County, Wyo ming, clerk’s office, based on assessed income-tax liabilities for the years 19 88 through 1995 totaling $290,830. In response, Mr. Wolff filed an action i n Wyoming state court against the United States Secretary of the Treasury and an IRS revenue officer. The complaint challenged (1) the scope of authority of the “lienor;” (2) whether the persons signing the federal liens had authority to sign the liens; (3) the legality of the underlying tax assessments; (4) the validityof the liens; (5) the legal effect of the tax liens; (6) whether the liens shou ld be canceled of record; and (7) whether a writ of execution should issue agains t the “lienor.” Also included in the complaint was a “criminal portion” asking th e court to determine that the liens were fraudulent and that participants in the fraud should be criminally prosecuted. Though Mr. Wolff has no connection wit h Florida, he relied on Florida law for remedial relief because he felt that Wyoming law was inadequate.-3-

The government timely removed the case to federal d istrict court. Following a determination that the United States wa s the sole proper defendant, the district court denied Mr. Wolff’s remand motion and dismissed the complaint. In its order, the court thoroughly explained that t he federal government may be sued only if it has waived its sovereign immunity, Dahl v. United States , 319 F.3d 1226, 1228 (10th Cir. 2003), and that, in particula r, federal tax assessments and liens may be attacked only through statutorily-pres cribed administrative and judicial avenues, see Lonsdale v. United States , 919 F.2d 1440, 1444 (10th Cir. 1990). Because Mr. Wolff’s case did not fit within a statu tory waiver, the district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the government was shielded by sovereign immunity and therefore the co urt lacked subject matter jurisdiction. It also denied Mr. Wolff’s renewed m otion to remand the case to state court and his petition for declaratory relief. Later, the court denied a motion to vacate its order and remand the case. Mr. Wolff appealed.

DISCUSSION On appeal, Mr. Wolff argues that only the Wyoming state court has authority to hear his claims and that the district court was required to remand the action to state court. “This court has jurisdictio n over a denial of a motion to remand to state court when coupled with the appeal of a final judgment.”1 Section 1447(c) provides, in pertinent part, that “ [i]f at any time before

final judgment it appears that the district court l acks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” -4- Huffman v. Saul Holdings Ltd. P’ship, 194 F.3d 1072, 1076 (10th Cir. 1999) (quotation omitted). “We review a denial of a moti on to remand a claim for lack of removal jurisdiction de novo .” Garley v. Sandia Corp ., 236 F.3d 1200, 1207 (10th Cir. 2001). By statute, “[a]ny civil action of which the distri ct courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising un der the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States [is] removable. . . .” 2 8 U.S.C. § 1441(b). “The district courts . . . have original jurisdiction of any civi l action arising under any Act of Congress providing for internal revenue.” 28 U.S.C . § 1340. Further, the United States may remove any action in which it is sued “f or . . . the collection of the revenue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Mr. Wolff’s law suit is against the United States and it turns on the impact of federal tax laws on his property. The district court properly determined that the action was remov able to federal court. Therefore, Mr. Wolff’s first argument is totally wi thout merit. Mr. Wolff also contends that the district court err ed by not remanding the case to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 1 This contention is misplaced. Unequivocally, sovereign immunity shiel ds the federal government from suit in state courts. See Int’l Primate Prot. League v. Adm’rs of Tulane-5-

Educ. Fund , 500 U.S. 72, 85-86 (1991); see also Fent v. Okla

. Water Res. Bd. , 235 F.3d 553, 557, 559 (10th Cir. 2000) (affirming denial of plaintiff’s motion for remand and subsequent dismissal of the United S tates from suit, but requiring a remand of claims against state defendants asserti ng that an action against them would be futile without the presence of the United States). The United States may not be subjected to Mr. Wolff’s action in Wyoming state court. We decline to waste further judicial resources by requiring the district court to remand Mr. Wolff’s case to the Wy oming state court, which would inevitably dismiss the matter for lack of jur isdiction. The United States need not prove its entitlement to sovereign immunity twice. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED; the “Petition for DeclaratoryRelief” is DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby Senior Circuit Judge