goal of homogeneity. Id. at 340. Other federal case law from this and other circuits involving the Copyright Act and other federal statutes further supports this Court’s holding. See, e.g., Pipkin v. United States Postal Serv., 951 F.2d 272, 274-75 (10th Cir.1991) (refusing to apply state tolling provision to Federal Tort Claims Act, stating that “Congress has expressly stated the applicable limitation period for FTCA claims and reference to state law is therefore inappropriate.”); Swarthout v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 504 F.2d 748, 749.(6th Cir.1974) (rejecting attempted application of Michigan fraudulent concealment statute to toll Federal Communications Act statute of limitations because it “would defeat the national uniformity Congress intended.”); Bergman, 930 F.Supp. at 879 (<HOLDING>); Jones v. United States, 126 F.Supp. 10, 12
holding that duress toll to statute of limitations under state law had no application to federal rico statute of limitations holding that a notice requirement in a new york statute conflicted with the copyright acts statute of limitations and stating that the state has no power to resist congresss determina tion of fairness as embodied in the federal statute of limitations holding that new york statute of limitations for  1983 actions was three years holding statute that extended statute of limitations for certain criminal sexual conduct could not be applied retroactively to a prosecution commenced after the limitations statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense had expired holding that trial court erred by granting a directed verdict on statute of limitations defense and remanding for a new trial on the statute of limitations only