were agencies or in-strumentalities of FARC. In fact, the Partnerships presented evidence of their ownership, presumably under the incorrect understanding that § 1603(b) would control for TRIA § 201. As discussed above regarding the writs of garnishment, the court properly found that evidence immaterial to the agency or instrumentality allegation. The Partnerships also argue that there was not a sufficient evidentiary basis for the agency or instrumentality determination. This argument is unavailing. The evidence Plaintiffs presented to the district court was sufficient to establish the required relationship between FARC and the Partnerships, even if that relationship was indirect. Cf. In re Air Crash Disaster Near Roselawn, Ind., on Oct. 31, 1994, 96 F.3d 932, 940-41 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). The district court therefore did not clearly
holding majorityowned subsidiary of a government owned corporation is not an instrumentality of a foreign state holding that the state police is a state agency holding that an entity majorityowned by an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state is itself an agency or instrumentality of that foreign state under the fsia holding that a party waived the right to allege contrary facts on appeal eg that defendant was not an agent or instrumentality of the mexican government for sovereign immunity purposes where the party alleged that the defendant was an agent or instrumentality in its complaint holding school district  in claim made pri or to amendment defining state agency to be state instrumentality subject to claims made under tchra