Circuit case, the issue was considered to some degree below but was not presented on appeal. In Handgards, Inc. v. Ethicon, Inc., 552 F.Supp. 820 (N.D.Cal.1982), aff'd, 743 F.2d 1282 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1190, 105 S.Ct. 963, 83 L.Ed.2d 968 (1985), the district court applied the FCIA to a judgment against a private party entered prior to the act’s effective date. It imposed interest at the state rate under on v. Crown Fin. Corp., 553 F.Supp. 114, 116-17 n. 4 (E.D.Pa.1982) (same holding for a July 1979 judgment). The Eighth Circuit has adopted the second interpretation — that the FCIA applies to judgments entered before the act’s effective date for interest accruing in the entire period following the judgment. See R.W.T. v. Dalton, 712 F.2d 1225, 1234-35 (8th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1009, 104 S.Ct. 527,
holding that the fcia does not apply to a july 1981 judgment against a private party for inter est accruing after the judgment holding that the amended statute should apply to a preeffective date judgment for the entire postjudgment period holding that the fcia does not apply to a september 1981 judgment against the united states for interest accruing after the acts effective date holding that the fcia rate should apply to a march 30 1982 judgment against a private party for the entire postjudgment period holding that the fcia does not apply to a june 1981 judgment against a private party for interest accruing either after the judgment or after the effective date