the T-bill rate for the period after October 1, 1982. The lower court’s opinion, however, indicates that the parties may have agreed that this application of the FCIA was correct, an indication that is supported by the fact that this issue was not challenged on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. See Handgards, 743 F.2d at 1298-1300 (affirming interest award on other grounds without mentioning the FCIA issue); see also International Telemeter, Corp. v. Hamlin Int’l Corp., 754 F.2d 1492, 1494-95 (9th Cir.1985) (applying a stipulated state interest rate to a November 1981 judgment where the parties did not raise the FCIA issue). Hence, because the issue raised on this appeal was not presented to the Ninth Circuit in Turner, Handgards, or International Telemeter, w 2d 168, 174-76 (2d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Merit Ins. Co. v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 728
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 statute does not apply retroactively to claims accruing prior to the 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 september 1981 judgment against the united states for interest accruing after the acts effective date 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