issue pre-trial, he "only” had to show "a division of loyalties” on Cunha’s part, not "a conflict that affected” Cunha’s "performance.” But his suggestion is so little developed that it is waived. See, e.g., Muñiz v. Rovira, 373 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2004) (deeming waived skeletal argument unaccompanied by "citation to any pertinent authority”). 12 . As we noted many pages ago, § 3290 provides that “[n]o statute of limitations shall extend to any person fleeing from justice.” 13 . Ponzo floats the idea that the district court wrongly denied him the right to use "seized, untainted funds to retain counsel,” without showing that the funds were indeed untainted. And this lack of developed argumentation dooms his claim. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>). 14 . The Act defines "public entity” as (A)
holding issues raised in notice of appeal but not briefed are deemed waived holding that arguments which are not sufficiently developed are waived holding that issues not argued in initial brief are deemed waived holding that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation are deemed waived holding arguments not appropriately developed in brief are waived