from the federal government were moot because the funding had already been disbursed to other grant applicants). B. Recovery from Grenada or Freshfields Ex-Im Bank further disputes the mootness of the Grynberg Funds issue on the theory that “an order of this Court to the effect that the Grynberg Funds belong to Ex-Im Bank would then require Grenada to return those funds forthwith to Ex-Im Bank.” Appellant’s Br. 25 n. 12. This contention ignores that, under the FSIA, the Grynberg Funds were arguably subject to attachment only after they were deposited with the District Court and— according to Ex-Im Bank, at least — “designat[ed]” for commercial use in the United States: namely, payment to Fresh-fields. See EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 473 F.3d 463, 484 (2d Cir.2007) (“EM I”) (<HOLDING>). The withdrawal of the funds from deposit with
holding that although miranda warnings were not given to defendant police officers they had no cause of action under 42 usc  1983 because they were never prosecuted holding student activity fees not to be state funds when they were segregated from university funds and the state treasury holding that the district court erred in finding that defendant intended to inflict a 1700000 loss in a case where the loans were applied for with fraudulent information but never issued because discovery of the fraud occurred before the funds were released holding that funds were unavailable for attachment under section 1610 because they were never used for or designated for use in commercial activity holding that defendants who were responsible for collision resulting in pollution of river were liable to commercial fishermen