ÿWPCµ# Îú†öšè wV+¶p21i-|NÁ/\,‰e÷µËw%–ÍÊ@Çz8eñÎ[þŽ#Ü" •n˜—ÑŠí7)Å´bŸShù“ÆSŒBq!±qOæÔþÛz—‚ó+×ÏÌẜ–˰j[:йǤö“ì Z0¾ÒÛ€†›ÛZîÈë_Õüº#Iõ¤H}ΑRf¿rvQðê]œZ8²é†7šÓ2ºŽ=ìå0ß×ÑK8ß$fþÛ;’È ’rPÕolû‡¨]ààÃy÷}¤Šð5ì×鑾ÿ::y³ypÎMDPq¿OÖÁa}ŸÒýRá»cqeiç80+à›¼r]-Qx\,ÑšÍEsw TåuNƒ±È°öbKY™tHц`Nöà4bÇ•ã—xx˜§ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ BÆ"Æ"Æ"Æ"Æ"Æ"Æ"Æ"Æ"Æ"U Fã"UF)#UFo#˜KONICA MINOLTA 7085/IP-602ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ02X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (d:2|$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€1¸m1X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó …Ý ƒ|$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€1¤µ1X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔLarkin€died€while€this€suit€was€pending€and€the€administratorÐ ° Ðof€his€estate€has€been€substituted€as€a€party€plaintiff€in€hisÐ †Ö Ðplace€and€stead.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€25(a).«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@ Ý ƒ|$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€1¤µ1X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€court€sentenced€Bolduc€to€280€months€for€the€attemptedÐ ° Ðrobbery€at€Southgate€(count€1),€60€months€for€a€related€firearmsÐ †Ö Ðcharge€(count€2),€280€months€for€the€Oklahoma€Avenue€robbery€(countÐ \¬ Ð3),€and€240€months€for€a€related€firearms€charge€(count€4).€€TheÐ 2‚ Ðsentences€on€counts€1€and€3€were€to€run€concurrently,€followed€byÐ X Ðthe€sentence€for€count€2€and,€finally,€the€sentence€for€count€4.€Ð Þ. ÐThe€court€sentenced€Larkin€to€concurrent€terms€for€counts€1€and€3Ð ´  Ð(each€90€months),€followed€by€a€consecutive€60„month€term€for€countÐ Š Ú Ð2€and€a€further€consecutive€240„month€term€for€count€4.‰w2s ÉL=16Xy File3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀøÀTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT ÖÝ ƒ|$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€1¤µ1X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€recognize€that,€in€some€circumstances,€a€court€may€avoidÐ ° Ða€jurisdictional€quandary€if€a€tidier€resolution€on€the€merits€willÐ †Ö Ðdispose€of€the€case€in€favor€of€the€party€challenging€jurisdiction.€Ð \¬ ÐòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòStolleróó,€78€F.3d€710,€715€(1st€Cir.Ð 2‚ Ð1996).€€That€is€a€narrow€exception,€however,€especially€in€view€ofÐ X Ða€federal€court's€"special€obligation€to€'satisfy€itself€not€onlyÐ Þ. Ðof€its€own€jurisdiction,€but€also€that€of€the€lower€courts€in€aÐ ´  Ðcause€under€review.'"€€òòBenderóó€v.€òòWilliamsport€Area€Sch.€Dist.óó,€475Ð Š Ú ÐU.S.€534,€541€(1986)€(quoting€òòMitchellóó€v.€òòMaureróó,€293€U.S.€237,€244Ð ` ° Ð(1934));€òòaccordóó€òòSteel€Co.óó€v.€òòCitizens€for€a€Better€Env'tóó,€523€U.S.Ð 6 †  Ð83,€94€(1998).€€In€this€case,€we€deem€it€prudent€to€hew€to€theÐ  \  Ðgeneral€rule€rather€than€the€long„odds€exception€to€it.- ù- ½Ý ƒ|$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€1¤µ1X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOnly€two€of€these€exceptions€are€relevant€to€this€case.€€TheyÐ ° Ðstate€in€pertinent€part€that€the€provisions€of€the€Ô_ÔFTCAÔ_Ô€shall€notÐ †Ö Ðapply€to:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  à(a)€Any€claim€based€upon€an€act€or€omission€of€anÐ X Ðemployee€of€the€Government€.€.€.€based€upon€the€exerciseÐ Þ. Ðor€performance€or€the€failure€to€exercise€or€perform€aÐ ´  Ðdiscretionary€function€or€duty€on€the€part€of€a€federalÐ Š Ú Ðagency€.€.€.€.Ð` °Ð Ð  ÐÌà@xx!ìà*€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€*ˆÐ  \  ÐÌà8  à(h)€Any€claim€arising€out€of€assault,€€battery,€falseÐ ¸  Ðimprisonment,€false€arrest,€malicious€prosecution,€abuseÐ ŽÞ  Ðof€process,€libel,€slander,€misrepresentation,€deceit,€orÐ d´  Ðinterference€with€contract€rights€[subject€to€certainÐ :Š  Ðprovisos]€.€.€.€.Ð` Ð Ð  ÐÌ28€U.S.C.€ðð€2680(a),€(h). ‹Ý ƒ|$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€1¤µ1X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBroadly€stated,€òòBradyóó€imposes€a€constitutional€duty€onÐ ° Ðprosecutors€to€turn€over€exculpatory€evidence€to€a€defendant€in€aÐ †Ö Ðcriminal€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòBradyóó,€373€U.S.€at€87. Ý ƒ|$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€1¤µ1X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔA€party€can,€of€course,€maintain€actions€for€maliciousÐ ° Ðprosecution€or€abuse€of€process€under€Wisconsin€law.€€TheÐ †Ö Ðappellants€asserted€such€claims€here.€€The€district€court€dismissedÐ \¬ Ðthe€malicious€prosecution€claim€for€failure€to€plead€the€necessaryÐ 2‚ Ðelement€of€malice€and€the€abuse€of€process€claim€for€failure€toÐ X Ðassert€that€the€withholding€of€the€302s€was€willful€or€done€with€anÐ Þ. Ðulterior€purpose.€€òòBolducóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€No.€01„CV„11376,€2002Ð ´  ÐWL€1760882,€at€*3„*4€(D.€Mass.€July€30,€2002).€€The€appellants€haveÐ Š Ú Ðnot€challenged€either€of€those€rulings€on€appeal. ŽÝ ƒ|$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€1¤µ1X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFor€consistency's€sake,€we€affirm€the€entry€of€judgment€inÐ ° Ðfavor€of€the€United€States€with€respect€to€this€claim€on€anÐ †Ö Ðavailable€jurisdictional€ground.€€We€note,€however,€that€we€haveÐ \¬ Ðscoured€the€record€and€have€found€no€support€for€the€contentionÐ 2‚ Ðthat€any€negligence€on€the€part€of€FBI€supervisors€was€a€cause„in„Ð X Ðfact€of€Agent€Craft's€failure€to€place€the€302s€in€the€case€file.  Ý ƒ|$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€1¤µ1X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOn€October€21,€2002,€the€lower€court€granted€the€appellants'Ð ° Ðmotion€to€transfer€the€claim€against€Craft€to€the€United€StatesÐ †Ö ÐDistrict€Court€for€the€Eastern€District€of€Wisconsin.€€The€docketÐ \¬ Ðof€that€court€does€not€indicate€that€the€appellants€ever€perfectedÐ 2‚ Ðthe€transfer. dÿ.Courier New Regular<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular.Courier New RegularÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !Ùò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡2°c%°X2XÔÔ‡°ð‘°°2°c%ÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÐ ° ÐÔ#†X6X°°ð‘Å#ÔÔ‡„VÔ„XX6ÔFor€the€First€CircuitÔ#†X6X„„VÔY#ÔÔ#†2X¤µXXX6ä#Ôó óÐ „Ô ÐÓ¹ÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌÌNo.€03„2081Ð K › ÐÌà@<< ìàFRANK€Ô_ÔBOLDUCÔ_Ô€ET€AL.,ˆÐ ÷ G  ÐÌà@ˆˆìàPlaintiffs,€Appellants,ˆÐ £ó  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ OŸ  ÐÌà@ìàUNITED€STATES€OF€AMERICA,ˆÐ ûK  ÐÌà@<< ìàDefendant,€Appellee.ˆÐ §÷ ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<R` AßÐ S£ ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ 8ˆ ÐÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà@  ìà[Hon.€Patti€B.€Saris,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ à ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<;` AßÐ <Œ ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ !q ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Boudin,€òòChief€Judgeóó,Ð Í ÐSelya€and€Lynch,€òòCircuit€Judgesóó.Ð £ó  ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<N ` AßÐ O Ÿ" ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòStephen€Ô_ÔHronesÔ_Ôóó,€with€whom€òòÔ_ÔHronesÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔGarrityÔ_Ô€&€Hedgesóó€was€onÐ 4!„$ Ðbrief,€for€appellants.Ð  "Z% Ðà  àòòAnita€Johnsonóó,€Assistant€United€States€Attorney,€with€whomÐ à"0& ÐòòMichael€J.€Sullivanóó,€United€States€Attorney,€and€òòGeorge€B.Ð ¶#' ÐHenderson,€IIóó,€Assistant€United€States€Attorney,€were€on€brief,€forÐ Œ$Ü( Ðappellee.Ð b%² ) ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ ä'4#,ä'4# ‹‹ÐÓÓÐ SIH(˜#-  Äâ@38433„„‰ Äâ@‰‹‹SÐÌMarch€23,€2005Ð )n$/ ÐÐ RHCô)D%0"  Äâ@38433  Äâ@ ‹‹RÐÐ(H(˜#1  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÌÌÓ  ÓÌÐ  |-Ì(4? ÐÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€3¤µ3XXdÖdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òSELYA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€This€case€arises€out€of€a€seriesÐ ° Ðof€apparent€blunders€on€the€part€of€the€Federal€Bureau€ofÐ xÈ ÐInvestigation€(FBI),€leading€to€the€wrongful€conviction€of€two€menÐ $t Ðon€bank€robbery€charges.€€After€the€truth€came€to€light,€the€trialÐ Ð  Ðcourt€set€aside€the€convictions.€€The€men€then€sued€the€UnitedÐ | Ì ÐStates€under€the€Federal€Tort€Claims€Act€(FTCA),€28€U.S.C.€ððððÐ ( x  Ð1346(b),€2671„2680.€€Following€a€bench€trial,€the€district€courtÐ Ô$  Ðdenied€relief.€€òòSeeóó€òòBolducóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€265€F.€Supp.€2d€153Ð €Ð  Ð(D.€Mass.€2003).€€The€court€acknowledged€the€government'sÐ ,|  Ðjurisdictional€challenges€but€opted€to€decide€the€case€on€theÐ Ø( Ðmerits.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€154.Ð „Ô Ðà ` àOn€appeal,€we€think€it€more€orderly€to€treat€the€questionÐ 0€ Ðof€jurisdiction€as€a€threshold€matter.€€Concluding,€as€we€do,€thatÐ Ü, Ðthe€FTCA€does€not€support€the€assertion€of€federal€subject€matterÐ ˆØ Ðjurisdiction,€we€affirm€the€judgment€on€that€alternative€ground.Ð 4„ Ðò òI.€€BACKGROUNDó óÐ à0 Ðà ` àThe€chronicle€of€relevant€events€takes€us€back€more€thanÐ ¨ø  Ðsixteen€years.€€We€recount€the€facts€as€supportably€found€by€theÐ T!¤" Ðdistrict€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€155„69.Ð #P$ Ðà ` àOn€June€28,€1988,€two€middle„aged€white€men€attempted€toÐ ¬$ü& Ðrob€a€branch€of€the€First€Wisconsin€Bank€situated€at€the€SouthgateÐ X&¨!( ÐMall€in€Greenfield,€Wisconsin.€€The€FBI€mounted€an€investigationÐ (T#* Ðinto€the€Southgate€incident.€€Agent€Daniel€Craft€led€the€probe.€Ð °)%, ÐBecause€the€thieves€came€away€from€Southgate€empty„handed,€CraftÐ \+¬&. Ðconsidered€the€crime€a€"nothing€robbery"€and€delegated€substantialÐ ° Ðinvestigative€responsibility€to€a€rookie,€Agent€Derrel€Craig.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àOn€November€15,€1988,€Craft€and€Craig€rounded€up€fourÐ X ÐSouthgate€eyewitnesses€and€showed€them€a€photographic€array.€€TheÐ ´  Ðarray€did€not€include€pictures€of€either€the€appellants€or€the€menÐ ` ° Ðwho€ultimately€were€determined€to€be€the€actual€culprits.€Ð  \  ÐNevertheless,€two€of€the€four€eyewitnesses€selected€the€photographsÐ ¸  Ðof€Allan€Daniel€Wilwerding€and€Douglas€Wayne€Thompson€as€depictionsÐ d´  Ðof€the€robbers,€and€another€eyewitness€fingered€Wilwerding.€€TheÐ `  Ðagents€recorded€the€results€in€separate€memos,€known€in€FBIÐ ¼  Ðparlance€as€302€reports.€€The€two€sets€of€reports€attributedÐ h¸ Ðdifferent€levels€of€certitude€to€the€eyewitness€identifications:€Ð d ÐCraft's€reports€indicated€that€two€of€the€eyewitnesses€hadÐ À Ðdescribed€Wilwerding€and€Thompson€as€"similar"€to€the€robbersÐ l¼ Ðwhereas€Craig's€reports€noted€that€those€eyewitnesses€hadÐ h Ðidentified€the€men€as€"identical"€to€the€robbers.€€The€reportsÐ Ä Ðregarding€the€eyewitness€who€had€identified€only€Wilwerding€wereÐ pÀ  Ðalso€inconsistent;€again,€Craft's€report€attributed€a€"similar"Ð !l" Ðidentification€to€that€eyewitness€whereas€Craig's€report€recordedÐ È"$ Ðan€"identical"€match.Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àAs€lead€investigator,€Craft€bore€responsibility€forÐ  &p!( Ðfinalizing€the€302€reports€by€reviewing€them€for€errors€andÐ Ì'#* Ðinitialing€them.€€According€to€FBI€policy,€once€Craft€finalized€theÐ x)È$, Ð302€reports,€he€was€required€to€place€them€in€the€case€file.€€TheÐ $+t&. Ðcourt€below€found€that,€in€this€instance,€Craft€ignored€this€policyÐ ° Ðand€excluded€Craig's€302€reports€from€the€case€file€because€heÐ \¬ Ðunilaterally€decided€that€they€inaccurately€reported€the€strengthÐ X Ðof€the€identifications.€€òòId.óó€at€157.€€The€court€also€found€itÐ ´  Ðdoubtful€that€Craft's€302€reports€were€in€the€case€file€when€theÐ ` ° ÐFBI€turned€it€over€to€the€United€States€Attorney.€€òòId.óó€€It€isÐ  \  Ðundisputed€that€FBI€agents€have€no€discretion€to€withholdÐ ¸  Ðparticular€302€reports€from€a€case€file.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óóÐ d´  Ðà ` àOn€October€18,€1989,€two€middle„aged€white€men€stuck€upÐ `  Ðthe€Oklahoma€Avenue€branch€of€the€First€Wisconsin€Bank€in€MilwaukeeÐ ¼  Ðand€absconded€with€$400,000.€€Agent€Craft€again€took€the€lead€inÐ h¸ Ðthe€ensuing€investigation.€€This€time,€however,€his€aide„de„campÐ d Ðwas€Agent€Margaret€Cronin.€€The€general€description€of€the€OklahomaÐ À ÐAvenue€perpetrators€reminded€Cronin,€a€Boston€native,€of€an€articleÐ l¼ Ðshe€had€read€in€a€Boston€newspaper€describing€arrests€in€Lowell,Ð h ÐMassachusetts,€following€an€armored€car€robbery€in€nearbyÐ Ä ÐChelmsford.€€Those€arrested€included€two€middle„aged€white€men,€andÐ pÀ  ÐCronin€thought€that€she€perceived€some€similarities.Ð !l" Ðà ` àIn€early€1990,€on€Cronin's€initiative,€the€MilwaukeeÐ È"$ Ðoffice€of€the€FBI€included€photographs€of€plaintiffs„appellantsÐ t$Ä& ÐFrank€Bolduc€and€Francis€Larkin€(each€of€whom€had€been€detained€inÐ  &p!( Ðâ âconnection€with€the€Chelmsford€armored€car€robbery)€in€an€arrayÐ Ì'#* Ðdisplayed€to€the€Southgate€and€Oklahoma€Avenue€eyewitnesses.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€SomeÐ ° Ðâ âwitnesses€identified€Bolduc€and/or€Larkin€as€the€culprits;€othersÐ \¬ Ðwere€unable€to€make€any€positive€identifications€at€that€time.€Ð X ÐEncouraged€to€some€extent€by€these€results,€the€FBI€arranged€toÐ ´  Ðhave€the€appellants€transported€to€Wisconsin€and€placed€them€in€aÐ ` ° Ðlineup.€€Several€(but€not€all)€of€the€eyewitnesses€to€the€SouthgateÐ  \  Ðand€Oklahoma€Avenue€incidents€identified€them€as€the€robbers.€€AÐ ¸  Ðfederal€grand€jury,€sitting€in€Milwaukee,€subsequently€indicted€theÐ d´  Ðappellants€for€the€attempted€armed€robbery€of€Southgate€and€theÐ `  Ðarmed€robbery€of€Oklahoma€Avenue,€òòseeóó€18€U.S.C.€ðð€2113,€and€forÐ ¼  Ðrelated€firearms€offenses,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€924(c)(1).Ð h¸ Ðà ` àThe€trial€went€forward€in€February€of€1991.€€TheÐ d Ðprosecution€relied€entirely€upon€eyewitness€identifications,Ð À Ðincluding€the€testimony€of€the€same€three€witnesses€who€previouslyÐ l¼ Ðhad€identified€others€(Wilwerding€and€Thompson)€as€"similar"€orÐ h Ð"identical"€to€the€Southgate€bandits;€this€time,€the€trio€madeÐ Ä Ðpositive€identifications€of€Bolduc€and/or€Larkin.€€Neither€theÐ pÀ  Ðprosecutor€nor€the€witnesses€themselves€mentioned€their€earlierÐ !l" Ð(inconsistent)€match„ups.€€The€defense€relied€mainly€upon€alibiÐ È"$ Ðtestimony€indicating€that€the€appellants€were€in€the€Boston€areaÐ t$Ä& Ðâ âwhen€the€crimes€were€committed.€€The€jury€found€the€appellantsÐ  &p!( Ðguilty€of€all€charges€and,€on€May€24,€1991,€the€district€courtÐ ° Ðsentenced€both€men€to€serve€lengthy€prison€terms.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àFollowing€the€imposition€of€sentence,€federal€officialsÐ X Ðreturned€Bolduc€to€a€Massachusetts€state€penitentiary€to€resumeÐ ´  Ðserving€a€life€sentence€for€an€earlier€second„degree€murderÐ ` ° Ðconviction,€which€the€parole€board€had€reinstated€upon€Bolduc'sÐ  \  Ðarrest€for€his€putative€involvement€in€the€Chelmsford€armored€carÐ ¸  Ðrobbery.€€Upon€learning€of€the€federal€convictions,€however,Ð d´  ÐMassachusetts€authorities€decided€to€dismiss€the€charges€pendingÐ `  Ðagainst€Bolduc€and€Larkin€with€respect€to€the€armored€car€caper.€Ð ¼  ÐIn€their€view,€the€appellants'€ages€and€the€length€of€their€federalÐ h¸ Ðsentences€contradicted€the€need€to€seek€additional€prison€time.€Ð d ÐDespite€this€decision,€the€Massachusetts€parole€board€determinedÐ À Ðthat€Bolduc's€federal€conviction€furnished€sufficient€grounds€toÐ l¼ Ðsupport€the€revocation€of€his€parole€and,€therefore,€he€remained€inÐ h Ðstate€prison.Ð Ä Ðà ` àNotwithstanding€the€appellants'€arrests€andÐ pÀ  Ðincarceration,€similar€robberies€continued€to€plague€MidwesternÐ !l" Ðbanks.€€More€than€six€years€after€the€appellants€were€sentenced,Ð È"$ Ðthe€FBI€arrested€William€Kirkpatrick€on€suspicion€of€involvement€inÐ ° Ðseveral€of€the€more€recent€robberies.€€Though€incarcerated,€BolducÐ \¬ Ðcaught€wind€of€this€turn€of€events€and€asked€Kirkpatrick's€attorneyÐ X Ðfor€any€available€information€about€the€Southgate€and€OklahomaÐ ´  ÐAvenue€robberies.€€The€lawyer€sent€Bolduc€a€packet€containing,Ð ` ° Ðinter€alia,€Agent€Craig's€302€reports€anent€the€November€1988€photoÐ  \  Ðarray.€€It€was€in€that€roundabout€way€that€Bolduc€first€learned€ofÐ ¸  Ðthis€exculpatory€evidence.€€Larkin€learned€of€the€evidence€at€anÐ d´  Ðeven€later€date.Ð `  Ðà ` àIn€time,€Kirkpatrick€confessed€that€he€and€a€partner€hadÐ ¼  Ðundertaken€both€the€Southgate€and€Oklahoma€Avenue€heists.€€TheÐ h¸ Ðappellants€filed€federal€habeas€petitions,€òòseeóó€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2255,Ð d Ðwhich€the€government€did€not€oppose.€€On€June€11,€1999,€a€federalÐ À Ðdistrict€judge€granted€the€petitions,€vacated€the€appellants'Ð l¼ Ðsentences,€and€issued€certificates€of€innocence.€€Larkin€wasÐ h Ðreleased€from€federal€custody€and€Bolduc,€relying€on€theÐ Ä Ðcertificate€of€innocence,€successfully€petitioned€the€MassachusettsÐ pÀ  Ðparole€board€for€reinstatement€of€his€parole.Ð !l" Ðò òII.€€TRAVEL€OF€THE€CASEó óÐ È"$ Ðà ` àFollowing€their€release,€the€appellants€commenced€a€civilÐ $à& Ðaction€in€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€District€ofÐ <&Œ!( ÐMassachusetts€in€an€effort€to€recover€money€damages€for€the€eightÐ è'8#* Ðyears€that€they€had€languished€in€prison.€€Their€complaintÐ ”)ä$, Ðpresented€claims€under€the€FTCA€against€the€United€States€forÐ @+&. Ðmalicious€prosecution,€false€imprisonment,€abuse€of€process,€andÐ ° Ðnegligent€supervision,€as€well€as€a€òòBivensóó€claim€against€AgentÐ \¬ ÐCraft,€òòseeóó€òòBivensóó€v.€òòSix€Unknown€Named€Agents€of€FBNóó,€403€U.S.€388,Ð X Ð389€(1971).€€The€district€court€dismissed€the€maliciousÐ ´  Ðprosecution,€abuse€of€process,€and€false€imprisonment€counts€forÐ ` ° Ðfailure€to€state€claims€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted,€òòseeóóÐ  \  ÐFed.€R.€Civ.€P.€12(b)(6),€and€dismissed€the€òòBivensóó€claim€for€wantÐ ¸  Ðof€in€personam€jurisdiction,€òòseeóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€12(b)(2).€€None€ofÐ d´  Ðthese€rulings€have€been€contested€on€appeal€and€we€abjure€anyÐ `  Ðfurther€discussion€of€them.׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Withal,€the€district€court€permittedÐ ¼  Ðthe€negligent€supervision€claim€to€go€forward€and€subsequentlyÐ h¸ Ðallowed€the€appellants€to€add€a€straight€negligence€claim€under€theÐ d ÐFTCA.€€Both€claims€were€premised€on€the€allegation€that€the€FBI'sÐ À Ðwithholding€of€the€above„described€302€reports€deprived€theÐ l¼ Ðappellants€of€the€benefit€of€exculpatory€evidence€before€and€duringÐ h Ðthe€criminal€trial,€and€thus€led€to€their€wrongful€convictions.Ð Ä Ðà ` àThe€parties€engaged€in€extensive€discovery.€€TheÐ pÀ  Ðgovernment€challenged€the€existence€of€subject€matter€jurisdictionÐ !l" Ðfor€the€first€time€in€a€motion€served€almost€two€months€after€theÐ È"$ Ðdeadline€for€filing€dispositive€motions€had€passed.€€Subject€matterÐ t$Ä& Ðjurisdiction€is€not€waivable,€and€a€party€cannot€confer€subjectÐ  &p!( Ðmatter€jurisdiction€upon€a€federal€court€by€failing€to€assert€thatÐ ° Ðdefense€in€a€timely€manner.€€òòSeeóó€òòQuinnóó€v.€òòCity€of€Bostonóó,€325€F.3dÐ \¬ Ð18,€26€(1st€Cir.€2003);€òòIrvingóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€162€F.3d€154,€160Ð X Ð(1st€Cir.€1998)€(en€banc).€€Still,€the€belated€filing€of€a€motionÐ ´  Ðto€dismiss€for€want€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction€can€haveÐ ` ° Ðconsequences€in€terms€of€a€court's€case„management€decisions.€€SoÐ  \  Ðit€was€here:€€the€district€court€elected€to€withhold€considerationÐ ¸  Ðof€the€jurisdictional€issue€until€after€the€trial.Ð d´  Ðà ` àThe€appellants'€two€remaining€claims€ð"ð€negligence€andÐ `  Ðnegligent€supervision€under€the€FTCA€ð"ð€were€tried€to€the€districtÐ ¼  Ðcourt€for€four€days.€€The€court€then€requested€post„trial€briefing.€Ð h¸ ÐThe€government's€memorandum€raised€a€litany€of€defenses,€includingÐ d Ða€renewed€plea€that€the€court€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction.Ð À Ðà ` àOn€July€2,€2003,€the€district€court€filed€a€lengthyÐ l¼ Ðrescript€in€which€it€ordered€judgment€in€favor€of€the€United€StatesÐ h Ðon€the€ground€that€the€appellants€had€not€proved€that€the€FBI'sÐ Ä Ðfailure€to€provide€the€exculpatory€302€reports€had€harmed€them.€Ð pÀ  ÐòòSeeóó€òòBolducóó,€265€F.€Supp.€2d€at€154,€171.€€The€court's€rationale€isÐ !l" Ðcomplicated,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€at€154,€169„71,€and€the€appellants€bitterlyÐ È"$ Ðdispute€it.€€We€need€not€set€foot€on€that€battlefield:€€federalÐ t$Ä& Ðcourts€are€courts€of€limited€jurisdiction€and,€in€the€circumstancesÐ  &p!( Ðof€this€case,€we€consider€ourselves€bound€to€address€theÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âjurisdictional€issue€first,€regardless€of€the€government's€failureÐ x)È$, Ðto€raise€it€in€a€more€timely€fashion.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòIrvingóó,€òòóó162€F.3d€at€160Ð ° Ðâ â(admonishing€that€the€federal€courts€"have€an€affirmativeÐ \¬ Ðobligation€to€examine€jurisdictional€concerns€on€their€ownÐ X Ðinitiative"€even€if€the€parties€have€neglected€them);€òòBerneróó€v.Ð ´  ÐòòDelahantyóó,€129€F.3d€20,€23€(1st€Cir.€1997)€(noting€"that€a€courtÐ ` ° Ðshould€first€confirm€the€existence€of€rudiments€such€asÐ  \  Ðjurisdiction€.€.€.€before€tackling€the€merits€of€a€controvertedÐ ¸  Ðcase").€€As€matters€turn€out,€resolution€of€that€issue€terminatesÐ d´  Ðthis€appeal.Ð `  Ðò òIII.€€SUBJECT€MATTER€JURISDICTIONó óÐ ¼  Ðà ` àConsistent€with€the€foregoing,€we€turn€directly€to€theÐ „Ô Ðjurisdictional€issue.€€We€begin€with€first€principles:€€it€isÐ 0€ Ðapodictic€that€"[a]s€a€sovereign€nation,€the€United€States€isÐ Ü, Ðimmune€from€liability€except€to€the€extent€that€it€consents€toÐ ˆØ Ðsuit."€€òòDynamic€Image€Techs.,€Inc.óó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€221€F.3d€34,Ð 4„ Ð39€(1st€Cir.€2000).€€The€FTCA€evinces€a€waiver€of€sovereignÐ à0 Ðimmunity€with€respect€to€certain€categories€of€torts€committed€byÐ ŒÜ  Ðfederal€employees€in€the€scope€of€their€employment.€€òòSeeóó€28€U.S.C.Ð ° Ððð€1346(b)(1).€€It€simultaneously€grants€the€federal€district€courtsÐ \¬ Ðjurisdiction€over€such€claims.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòFDICóó€v.€òòMeyeróó,Ð X Ð510€U.S.€471,€475„77€(1994).€€Thus,€we€must€determine€whether€thisÐ ´  Ðwaiver€of€sovereign€immunity€extends€to€the€appellants'€claims€ofÐ ` ° Ðnegligence€and€negligent€supervision,€so€that€those€claims€fallÐ  \  Ðwithin€the€jurisdictional€grant€of€section€1346(b)(1).€€òòSeeóó€òòMeyeróó,Ð ¸  Ð510€U.S.€at€477.Ð d´  Ðà ` àThat€grant€extends€to€claimsÐ `  ÐÓÓà8 ` àagainst€the€United€States,€for€money€damages,Ð ¼  Ðaccruing€on€and€after€January€1,€1945,€forÐ ’â Ðinjury€or€loss€of€property,€or€personal€injuryÐ h¸ Ðor€death€caused€by€the€negligent€or€wrongfulÐ >Ž Ðact€or€omission€of€any€employee€of€theÐ d ÐGovernment€while€acting€within€the€scope€ofÐ ê: Ðhis€office€or€employment,€under€circumstancesÐ À Ðwhere€the€United€States,€if€a€private€person,Ð –æ Ðwould€be€liable€to€the€claimant€in€accordanceÐ l¼ Ðwith€the€law€of€the€place€where€the€act€orÐ B’ Ðomission€occurred.Ðh` x` x ÐÌÓÓ28€U.S.C.€ðð€1346(b)(1).€€A€further€explication€of€the€last€clauseÐ Ä Ðis€to€be€found€in€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2674,€which€provides€that€the€UnitedÐ pÀ  ÐStates€only€"shall€be€liable€.€.€.€in€the€same€manner€and€to€theÐ !l" Ðsame€extent€as€a€private€individual€under€like€circumstances."€€AÐ È"$ Ðbundle€of€exceptions,€mostly€in€the€nature€of€exclusions€and€carve„Ð t$Ä& Ðâ âouts,€circumscribes€the€FTCA's€waiver€of€sovereign€immunity.€€òòSeeóóÐ  &p!( Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€2680(a)„(n);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòDynamic€Image€Techs.óó,€221€F.3d€atÐ ° Ð39.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àWe€add€a€caveat.€€As€with€all€waivers€of€sovereignÐ X Ðimmunity,€the€FTCA€must€be€"construed€strictly€in€favor€of€theÐ ´  Ðfederal€government,€and€must€not€be€enlarged€beyond€such€boundariesÐ ` ° Ðas€its€language€plainly€requires."€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòHornóó,€29€F.3dÐ  \  Ð754,€762€(1st€Cir.€1994).€€With€this€principle€firmly€in€mind,€weÐ ¸  Ðundertake€our€jurisdictional€analysis.Ð d´  Ðà ` àAs€said,€the€appellants€prosecuted€two€FTCA€claims:€€oneÐ `  Ðfor€negligence€(based€on€Agent€Craft's€alleged€failure€to€includeÐ ¼  Ðthe€above„described€302s€in€the€case€file€turned€over€to€federalÐ h¸ Ðprosecutors€and€ultimately€to€the€defense)€and€one€for€negligentÐ d Ðâ âsupervision€(based€on€the€alleged€failure€of€Craftððs€superiors€toÐ À Ðoversee€him€more€closely).€€We€consider€the€jurisdictional€bonaÐ ° Ðfides€of€each€claim€separately.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà@ìàò òA.€€òòThe€Negligence€Claimóó.ó óˆÐ X Ðà ` àThe€"law€of€the€place"€provides€the€substantive€rules€toÐ Ð  Ðbe€used€in€deciding€FTCA€actions.€€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1346(b)(1).€€TheÐ | Ì Ðphrase€"law€of€the€place"€refers€to€the€law€of€the€state€in€whichÐ ( x  Ðthe€allegedly€Ô_ÔtortiousÔ_Ô€acts€or€omissions€occurred.€€òòSeeóó€òòMeyeróó,€510Ð Ô$  ÐU.S.€at€478;€òòCastroóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€775€F.2d€399,€405€(1st€Cir.Ð €Ð  Ð1985)€(per€curiam).€€Federal€constitutional€or€statutory€law€cannotÐ ,|  Ðfunction€as€the€source€of€FTCA€liability.€€òòSeeóó€òòMeyeróó,€510€U.S.€atÐ Ø( Ð478€(holding€that€"the€United€States€simply€has€not€rendered€itselfÐ „Ô Ðliable€under€ðð€1346(b)€for€constitutional€tort€claims");€òòSea€AirÐ 0€ ÐShuttle€Corp.óó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€112€F.3d€532,€536„37€(1st€Cir.Ð Ü, Ð1997)€(explaining€that€there€can€be€no€FTCA€jurisdiction€where€theÐ ˆØ Ðchallenged€government€conduct€has€no€parallel€in€the€private€sectorÐ 4„ Ðand€the€asserted€liability€arises€from€a€federal€statutory€orÐ à0 Ðregulatory€obligation€with€no€comparable€common€law€principle€underÐ ŒÜ  Ðwhich€private€persons€would€be€held€liable);€òòZabala€Clementeóó€v.Ð 8!ˆ" ÐòòUnited€Statesóó,€567€F.2d€1140,€1149€(1st€Cir.€1978)€(establishingÐ ä"4$ Ðthat€"even€where€specific€behavior€of€federal€employees€is€requiredÐ $à& Ðby€federal€statute,€liability€to€the€beneficiaries€of€that€statuteÐ <&Œ!( Ðmay€not€be€founded€on€the€Federal€Tort€Claims€Act€if€state€lawÐ è'8#* Ðrecognizes€no€comparable€private€liability").€€It€follows€that€theÐ ”)ä$, Ðappellants€cannot€premise€jurisdiction€on€the€rule€of€òòBradyóó€v.Ð @+&. ÐòòMarylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963),׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€but,€rather,€must€look€to€WisconsinÐ ° Ðlaw€and€must€identify€in€that€body€of€jurisprudence€a€basis€forÐ \¬ Ðholding€a€private€person€liable€in€tort€for€acts€and€omissionsÐ X Ðcomparable€to€those€committed€(or,€at€least,€allegedly€committed)Ð ´  Ðby€Agent€Craft.€€òòSeeóó€òòDavric€Me.€Corp.óó€v.€òòU.S.€Postal€Serv.óó,€238Ð ` ° ÐF.3d€58,€64€(1st€Cir.€2001).Ð  \  Ðà ` àTo€maintain€a€cause€of€action€for€negligence€inÐ ¸  ÐWisconsin,€a€plaintiff€must€show€"(1)€[a]€duty€of€care€on€the€partÐ d´  Ðof€the€defendant;€(2)€a€breach€of€that€duty;€(3)€a€causalÐ `  Ðconnection€between€the€conduct€and€the€injury;€and€(4)€an€actualÐ ¼  Ðloss€or€damage€as€a€result€of€the€injury."€€òòRockweitóó€v.€òòSenecalóó,Ð h¸ Ð541€N.W.2d€742,€747€(Wis.€1995).€€Building€on€this€fairlyÐ d Ðconventional€formulation,€the€appellants€argue€that€Agent€Craft'sÐ À Ðfailure€to€ensure€the€turnover€of€exculpatory€evidence€constitutedÐ l¼ Ða€breach€of€a€duty€cognizable€under€Wisconsin€tort€law.Ð h Ðà ` àTo€satisfy€the€duty€prong,€the€appellants€rely€in€part€onÐ Ä Ðthe€duty€of€state€government€(and,€particularly,€state€prosecutors)Ð pÀ  Ðto€disclose€exculpatory€evidence.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€Appellants'€Reply€Br.Ð !l" Ðat€5„6€(citing€Wis.€Stat.€ðð€971.23(1)).€€This€effort€isÐ È"$ Ðunconvincing.€€By€the€FTCA's€plain€terms,€a€waiver€of€sovereignÐ t$Ä& Ðimmunity€attaches€only€where€"a€òòprivateóó€òòpersonóó[]€would€be€heldÐ  &p!( Ðliable."€€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1346(b)(1)€(emphasis€supplied).€€TheÐ Ì'#* Ðappellants€have€not€pointed€to€any€instance€in€which€Wisconsin€hasÐ ° Ðimposed€òòprivateóó€liability€on€a€prosecutor€or€other€state€agent€forÐ \¬ Ða€failure€to€disclose€exculpatory€evidence.€€That€is€a€fatal€flaw,Ð X Ðfor€the€federal€government€does€not€yield€its€immunity€with€respectÐ ´  Ðto€obligations€that€are€peculiar€to€governments€or€official„Ð ` ° Ðcapacity€state€actors€and€which€have€no€private€counterpart€inÐ  \  Ðstate€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòFranco€de€Jerezóó€v.€òòBurgosóó,€947€F.2d€527,€528€(1stÐ ¸  ÐCir.€1991)€(speaking€in€terms€of€the€negligence€of€governmentÐ d´  Ðemployees€òòasóó€òòsuchóó€is€insufficient€to€satisfy€the€FTCA's€"privateÐ `  Ðperson"€requirement);€òòDiMellaóó€v.€òòGray€Lines€of€Boston,€Inc.óó,€836Ð ¼  ÐF.2d€718,€720€(1st€Cir.€1988)€(stating€that€"[Ô_Ôw]hateverÔ_Ô€liabilityÐ h¸ Ð[a€state]€may€have€chosen€to€assume€for€itself€as€a€matter€ofÐ d Ðgovernmental€policy€has€no€bearing€on€the€liability€of€.€.€.Ð À Ðprivate€persons,€the€standard€the€federal€government€hasÐ l¼ Ðaccepted").€€Because€Wisconsin's€recognition€of€a€governmental€dutyÐ h Ðto€disclose€exculpatory€evidence€does€not€ground€private€liabilityÐ Ä Ðunder€that€state's€law,€it€cannot€serve€as€a€hook€on€which€to€hangÐ pÀ  Ðfederal€jurisdiction€here.Ð !l" Ðà ` àThis€conclusion€does€not€end€our€inquiry.€€We€nonethelessÐ È"$ Ðmust€inquire€whether€there€is€any€way€in€which€Wisconsin€mightÐ t$Ä& Ðimpose€tort€liability€upon€a€private€party€under€circumstancesÐ  &p!( Ðsufficiently€similar€to€those€present€in€this€case,€that€is,€aÐ Ì'#* Ðperson€who€comes€into€possession€of€exculpatory€evidence€as€part€ofÐ x)È$, Ðan€official€investigation€and€carelessly€fails€to€disclose€thatÐ $+t&. Ðevidence€to€prosecutors€(and,€ultimately,€to€the€accused).€€ThisÐ ° Ðmeans,€in€effect,€that€we€must€look€for€"some€relationship€betweenÐ \¬ Ðthe€governmental€employee[s]€and€plaintiff€to€which€state€law€wouldÐ X Ðattach€a€duty€of€care€in€purely€private€circumstances."€€òòSea€AirÐ ´  ÐShuttleóó,€112€F.3d€at€537€(citation€and€internal€quotation€marksÐ ` ° Ðomitted).Ð  \  Ðà ` àIn€formulating€its€test€for€negligence,€Wisconsin€hasÐ ¸  Ðadopted€a€broad€definition€of€the€element€of€duty.€€òòSeeóó€òòA.€E.€Inv.Ð d´  ÐCorp.óó€v.€òòLink€Builders,€Inc.óó,€214€N.W.2d€764,€766€(Wis.€1974)Ð `  Ð(explaining€that€Wisconsin€has€embraced€a€rationale€that€recognizesÐ ¼  Ða€duty€wherever€harm€is€foreseeable).€€As€a€result€of€this€choice,Ð h¸ ÐWisconsin€courts,€rather€than€examining€the€relationship€betweenÐ d Ðthe€parties€to€determine€the€existence€vel€non€of€a€duty,€focus€onÐ À Ðthe€foreseeability€of€harm€in€order€to€ascertain€whether€a€dutyÐ l¼ Ðarises.€€This€means€that€"[t]he€duty€of€any€person€is€theÐ h Ðobligation€of€due€care€to€refrain€from€any€act€which€will€causeÐ Ä Ðforeseeable€harm€to€others€even€though€the€nature€of€that€harm€andÐ pÀ  Ðthe€identity€of€the€harmed€person€or€harmed€interest€is€unknown€atÐ !l" Ðthe€time€of€the€act."€€òòId.óóÐ È"$ Ðà ` àThis€formulation€casts€a€wide€net.€€Indeed,€the€WisconsinÐ t$Ä& ÐSupreme€Court€ð"ð€the€most€authoritative€arbiter€of€Wisconsin€law€ð"ðÐ  &p!( Ðhas€ruminated€that€"[i]n€Wisconsin,€everyone€has€a€duty€of€care€toÐ Ì'#* Ðthe€whole€world."€€òòMilleróó€v.€òòWal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€580€N.W.2d€233,Ð x)È$, Ð238€(Wis.€1998).€€In€these€general€terms,€then,€a€private€personÐ $+t&. Ðmight€be€said€to€owe€a€duty€to€a€person€suspected€of€crime€ð"ð€theÐ ° Ðduty€being€to€exercise€due€care€in€the€handling€of€exculpatoryÐ \¬ Ðevidence€so€as€to€prevent€the€foreseeable€harm€of€wrongfulÐ X Ðconviction.€€òòCf.óó€òòBowenóó€v.€òòLumbermens€Mut.€Cas.€Co.óó,€517€N.W.2d€432,Ð ´  Ð439€(Wis.€1994)€("Wisconsin€law€considers€conduct€to€be€negligentÐ ` ° Ðif€it€involves€a€foreseeable€risk€of€harm€to€anyone.").Ð  \  Ðà ` àEven€if€we€assume€the€existence€of€such€a€duty,€thatÐ ¸  Ðassumption€does€not€take€the€appellants€as€far€as€they€need€to€go.€Ð d´  ÐUnder€the€FTCA,€the€relevant€inquiry€is€not€whether€state€law€mightÐ `  Ðassign€a€duty€to€a€private€person€in€the€same€or€similarÐ ¼  Ðcircumstances,€but,€rather,€whether€state€law€would€imposeÐ h¸ Ðliability€on€a€private€person€in€the€same€or€similar€circumstances.€Ð d ÐòòSeeóó€28€U.S.C.€ðððð€1346(b)(1),€2674.€€The€stating€of€a€claim€forÐ À Ðnegligence€(the€failure€to€exercise€due€care€by€one€having€aÐ l¼ Ðgeneral€duty€to€do€so€in€the€face€of€foreseeable€harm)€does€notÐ h Ðautomatically€mean€that€liability€would€attach€under€Wisconsin€law.€Ð Ä ÐThe€contrary€is€true:€€"[i]n€Wisconsin,€the€doctrine€of€publicÐ pÀ  Ðpolicy,€not€the€doctrine€of€duty,€limits€the€scope€of€a€defendant'sÐ !l" Ðliability."€€òòBowenóó,€517€N.W.2d€at€439;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòRockweitóó,€541Ð È"$ ÐN.W.2d€at€750€(stating€that€"the€determination€to€deny€liability€isÐ t$Ä& Ðessentially€one€of€public€policy€rather€than€of€duty€orÐ  &p!( Ðcausation");€òòSchusteróó€v.€òòAltenbergóó,€424€N.W.2d€159,€164€(Wis.€1988)Ð Ì'#* Ð("[Ô_ÔO]nceÔ_Ô€it€is€determined€that€a€negligent€act€has€been€committedÐ x)È$, Ðand€that€the€act€is€a€substantial€factor€in€causing€the€harm,€theÐ $+t&. Ðquestion€of€duty€is€irrelevant€and€a€finding€of€Ô_ÔnonliabilityÔ_Ô€can€beÐ ° Ðmade€only€in€terms€of€public€policy.").€€Because€the€measure€forÐ \¬ Ðdetermining€the€federal€government's€consent€to€suit€under€the€FTCAÐ X Ðis€a€private€person's€potential€òòliabilityóó€under€state€law,€we€turnÐ ´  Ðto€Wisconsin's€doctrine€of€public€policy.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àThe€question€of€whether€public€policy€precludes€tortÐ  \  Ðliability€is€"a€question€of€law€solely€for€judicial€decision."€Ð ¸  ÐòòMorganóó€v.€òòPa.€Gen.€Ins.€Co.óó,€275€N.W.2d€660,€667€(Wis.€1979).€€TheÐ d´  ÐWisconsin€Supreme€Court€has€enumerated€six€factors€relevant€to€thisÐ `  Ðdetermination.€€òòSeeóó€òòMilleróó,€580€N.W.2d€at€240.€€We€need€not€callÐ ¼  Ðthe€roll,€however,€as€that€court€has€decided€a€case€directly€onÐ h¸ Ðpoint€dealing€with€a€private€person€in€markedly€similarÐ d Ðcircumstances.€€We€look€to€that€decision€for€guidance.Ð À Ðà ` àIn€òòBromundóó€v.€òòHoltóó,€129€N.W.2d€149€(Wis.€1964),€theÐ l¼ Ðplaintiff€brought€an€action€in€negligence€against€a€doctor,€in€hisÐ h Ðprivate€capacity,€for€careless€performance€of€an€autopsyÐ Ä Ðcommissioned€by€law€enforcement€officers€in€the€course€of€theirÐ pÀ  Ðinvestigation€into€the€death€of€the€plaintiff's€wife.€€òòId.óó€at€150„Ð !l" Ð51.€€The€plaintiff€asserted€that€the€doctor's€negligent€performanceÐ È"$ Ðof€the€autopsy€and€subsequent€proffer€of€a€flawed€cause„of„deathÐ t$Ä& Ðopinion€led€directly€to€the€plaintiff's€arrest,€prosecution,€andÐ  &p!( Ðresulting€damages.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€150.€€The€court€framed€the€questionÐ Ì'#* Ðpresented€by€the€plaintiff's€suit€as€whether,€assuming€thatÐ x)È$, Ðnegligence€and€causation€were€present,€the€plaintiff's€interest€inÐ $+t&. Ð"freedom€from€unjustifiable€criminal€litigation"€is€the€"type€ofÐ ° Ðinterest€[that]€is€protected€against€unintentional€invasion."€€òòId.óóÐ \¬ Ðat€151.Ð X Ðà ` àThe€court€then€undertook€a€public€policy€analysis€toÐ ´  Ðdetermine€whether€imposing€liability€on€the€doctor€would€beÐ ` ° Ðappropriate.€€It€began€by€noting€that€"[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€law,€for€reasons€ofÐ  \  Ðpolicy,€closely€circumscribes€the€types€of€causes€of€action€whichÐ ¸  Ðmay€arise€against€those€who€participate€in€law€enforcement€activityÐ d´  Ðor€in€the€functioning€of€the€judicial€system."€€òòId.óó€at€152.€€ItÐ `  Ðwent€on€to€observe€that,€in€civil€litigation,€such€defendants€oftenÐ ¼  Ðhave€a€relationship€to€the€judicial€process€that€affords€themÐ h¸ Ðimmunity€from€private€liability.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€(citing€the€protectionsÐ d Ðafforded€to,€inter€Ô_ÔaliosÔ_Ô,€prosecutors€and€witnesses).€€It€nextÐ À Ðdetermined€that,€even€when€a€defendant's€relationship€to€theÐ l¼ Ðjudicial€process€does€not€afford€a€specific€immunity,€"he€is€stillÐ h Ðnot€held€liable€to€the€person€who€has€been€subjected€toÐ Ä Ðunjustifiable€prosecution€in€the€absence€of€malice."€€òòId.óó€at€153.Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àThe€court's€reasoning€is€instructive.€€In€its€view,€lawÐ !l" Ðenforcement€and€the€safeguarding€of€society€from€crime€would€sufferÐ È"$ Ðif€government€agents€(and€outsiders€hired€to€assist€in€lawÐ t$Ä& Ðenforcement€activities)€were€subject€to€private€liability€forÐ  &p!( Ðdamages€arising€from€simple€negligence€in€the€performance€of€theirÐ Ì'#* Ðduties.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€153„54.€€The€òòBromundóó€court€held€that:Ð x)È$, ÐÓÓà8 ` àeven€if€a€person€employed€by€the€public€toÐ $+t&. Ðassist€in€law€enforcement€.€.€.€does€not€enjoyÐ ú+J'/ Ðimmunity,€.€.€.€the€same€considerations€ofÐ ° Ðpublic€policy€which€require€proof€of€malice€asÐ †Ö Ðan€element€of€an€action€for€maliciousÐ \¬ Ðprosecution€or€defamation€under€theseÐ 2‚ Ðcircumstances€must€exclude€liability€foundedÐ X Ðupon€mere€negligence.€€In€our€opinion,€theÐ Þ. Ðinterest€in€freedom€from€unjustifiableÐ ´  Ðcriminal€litigation€is,€as€a€matter€of€policy,Ð Š Ú Ðnot€protected€from€unintentional€tort.Ð` °` x` x ÐÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€154.Ð  \  Ðà ` àThis€holding€has€particular€pertinence€for€presentÐ ¸  Ðpurposes.€€òòóóAssuming€arguendo€that€the€appellants€could€demonstrateÐ d´  Ðnegligence,€causation,€and€actual€harm€ð"ð€a€matter€on€which€we€takeÐ `  Ðno€view€ð"ð€Wisconsin€law€nonetheless€would€preclude€the€impositionÐ ¼  Ðof€private€liability€on€a€private€person€in€circumstances€similarÐ h¸ Ðto€those€of€Agent€Craft.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Under€òòBromundóó,€malice€is€a€prerequisiteÐ d Ðfor€imposing€private€tort€liability€upon€a€private€individualÐ À Ðworking€with€law€enforcement€when€the€performance€of€his€duties€hasÐ l¼ Ðresulted€in€an€unjustifiable€criminal€prosecution€and/orÐ h Ðconviction.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€153„54.òòóó€€Because€the€appellants€have€failedÐ Ä Ðto€offer€a€scintilla€of€proof€of€malice,€they€have€failed€toÐ pÀ  Ðestablish€a€basis€under€the€law€of€the€place€for€imposing€liabilityÐ !l" Ðupon€a€private€person€in€like€circumstances.€€Consequently,€we€holdÐ È"$ Ðthat€the€FTCA€does€not€waive€the€federal€government's€sovereignÐ ° Ðimmunity€vis„„vis€the€appellants'€negligence€claim.€€It€followsÐ \¬ Ðinexorably€that€there€is€no€federal€subject€matter€jurisdictionÐ X Ðover€that€component€of€the€case.Ð ´  Ðà@| | ìàò òB.€€òòThe€Negligent€Supervision€Claimóó.ó óˆÐ ` ° Ðà ` àThis€leaves€the€negligent€supervision€claim.€€WisconsinÐ ( x  Ðrecognizes€the€tort€of€negligent€supervision.€€òòMilleróó,€580€N.W.2dÐ Ô$  Ðat€241.€€Under€Wisconsin€law,€a€breach€of€the€general€duty€toÐ €Ð  Ðsupervise€is€actionable€if€two€causation€components€exist:€€first,Ð ,|  Ðthe€wrongful€act€of€an€employee€must€have€been€a€cause„in„fact€ofÐ Ø( Ðthe€plaintiff's€injury;€second,€the€employer's€negligence€must€haveÐ „Ô Ðbeen€a€cause„in„fact€of€the€employee's€wrongful€act.€€òòId.óó€at€239.€Ð 0€ ÐFor€these€purposes,€it€is€not€necessary€that€the€employee'sÐ Ü, Ðwrongful€act,€in€and€of€itself,€constitute€an€actionable€tort.€€òòId.óó€Ð ˆØ ÐHence,€our€conclusion€that€the€United€States€cannot€be€heldÐ 4„ Ðvicariously€liable€for€Agent€Craft's€negligence€in€the€handling€ofÐ à0 Ðexculpatory€evidence,€òòseeóó€òòsupraóó€Part€III(A),€does€not€negate€theÐ ŒÜ  Ðpossibility€that€the€United€States€might€be€held€directly€liableÐ 8!ˆ" Ðfor€negligent€supervision.Ð ä"4$ Ðà ` àWe€need€not€hazard€a€public€policy€analysis€to€determineÐ $à& Ðwhether€a€private€employer€in€like€circumstances€would€faceÐ <&Œ!( Ðliability€for€negligent€supervision€under€Wisconsin€law.€€Even€ifÐ è'8#* Ðthe€appellants€could€successfully€urge€the€affirmative€of€thatÐ ”)ä$, Ðproposition€ð"ð€a€matter€on€which€we€do€not€opine€ð"ð€the€discretionaryÐ @+&. Ðfunction€exception€to€the€FTCA,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2680(a),€would€divestÐ ° Ðthe€federal€courts€of€jurisdiction€over€this€claim.€€€We€explainÐ \¬ Ðbriefly.Ð X Ðà ` àThe€FTCA€insulates€the€United€States€from€"[Ô_Ôa]nyÔ_Ô€claim€.Ð ´  Ð.€.€based€upon€the€exercise€or€performance€or€the€failure€toÐ ` ° Ðexercise€or€perform€a€discretionary€function€or€duty€on€the€part€ofÐ  \  Ða€federal€agency€or€an€employee€of€the€Government,€whether€or€notÐ ¸  Ðthe€discretion€involved€be€abused."€€òòId.óó€€This€proviso€balancesÐ d´  Ð"Congress'€willingness€to€impose€tort€liability€upon€the€UnitedÐ `  ÐStates€and€its€desire€to€protect€certain€governmental€activitiesÐ ¼  Ðfrom€exposure€to€suit€by€private€individuals."€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð h¸ ÐòòVarig€Airlinesóó,€467€U.S.€797,€808€(1984).€€When€a€claim€fallsÐ d Ðwithin€the€contours€of€section€2680(a),€it€must€be€dismissed€forÐ À Ðlack€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction.€€òòSeeóó€òòKellyóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,Ð l¼ Ð924€F.2d€355,€360€(1st€Cir.€1991).Ð h Ðà ` àTo€determine€whether€the€discretionary€function€provisoÐ Ä Ðapplies,€an€inquiring€court€must€first€identify€the€governmentÐ pÀ  Ðconduct€giving€rise€to€the€claim€in€question.€€òòMuniz„Riveraóó€v.Ð !l" ÐòòUnited€Statesóó,€326€F.3d€8,€15€(1st€Cir.€2003).€€In€assaying€thatÐ È"$ Ðconduct,€the€court€must€examine€its€nature€(as€opposed€to€theÐ t$Ä& Ðstatus€of€the€government€actor),€òòBerkovitzóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€486Ð  &p!( ÐU.S.€531,€536€(1988),€engaging€in€a€binary€analysis€to€ascertainÐ Ì'#* Ðwhether€Congress€sought€to€shelter€that€kind€of€conduct€from€tortÐ x)È$, Ðliability,€òòMuniz„Riveraóó,€326€F.3d€at€15.Ð $+t&. Ðà ` àThe€first€part€of€that€analysis€asks€whether€the€conductÐ ° Ðitself€is€discretionary,€that€is,€"a€matter€of€choice€for€theÐ \¬ Ðacting€employee."€€òòBerkovitzóó,€486€U.S.€at€536.€€This€definitionÐ X Ðexcludes€actions€prescribed€by€federal€statute,€regulation,€orÐ ´  Ðpolicy.€€òòId.óó€€If€the€court€concludes€that€the€conduct€is€not€aÐ ` ° Ðproduct€of€discretion,€the€analysis€ends€and€the€discretionaryÐ  \  Ðfunction€proviso€drops€out€of€the€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòKellyóó,€924€F.2d€at€360Ð ¸  Ð(noting€that€a€court€will€proceed€to€the€second€furcula€of€theÐ d´  Ðdiscretionary€function€test€only€if€it€concludes€that€the€relevantÐ `  Ðconduct€is€discretionary).€€If,€however,€the€court€concludes€thatÐ ¼  Ðthe€conduct€is€a€product€of€discretion,€it€then€must€determineÐ h¸ Ðwhether€the€exercise€of€that€discretion€is€susceptible€to€policy„Ð d Ðrelated€judgments.€€òòSeeóó€òòBerkovitzóó,€486€U.S.€at€537.Ð À Ðà ` àDecisions€are€thought€to€be€susceptible€to€policy„relatedÐ l¼ Ðjudgments€if€they€involve€an€"unrestrained€balancing€ofÐ h Ðincommensurable€values,"€including€a€differential€allocation€ofÐ Ä Ðresources€among€various€political€objectives.€€òòSeeóó€òòShanskyóó€v.Ð pÀ  ÐòòUnited€Statesóó,€164€F.3d€688,€695€(1st€Cir.€1999).€€On€this€issue,Ð !l" Ðit€is€the€plaintiff€who€must€carry€the€devoir€of€persuasion.€€òòSeeóóÐ È"$ Ðòòid.óó€at€692€(explaining€that€the€law€presumes€that€the€exercise€ofÐ t$Ä& Ðdiscretion€implicates€policy€and€that€it€is€the€plaintiff's€burdenÐ  &p!( Ðto€demonstrate€that€the€decision€is€not€susceptible€to€policy„Ð Ì'#* Ðrelated€judgments).€€Only€if€the€conduct€is€both€discretionary€andÐ x)È$, Ðpolicy„driven€will€section€2680(a)€strip€the€court€of€subjectÐ $+t&. Ðmatter€jurisdiction.€€òòSeeóó€òòMuniz„Riveraóó,€326€F.3d€at€15;€òòAttallahóó€v.Ð ° ÐòòUnited€Statesóó,€955€F.2d€776,€783€(1stòòóó€Cir.€1992).Ð \¬ Ðà ` àAgainst€this€backdrop,€the€appellants€argue€that€the€FBIÐ X Ðhad€an€obligation€under€federal€law€to€disclose€exculpatoryÐ ´  Ðevidence€to€them€and,€therefore,€that€the€conduct€relevant€to€theirÐ ` ° Ðclaim€was€not€discretionary.€€This€argument€confuses€theÐ  \  Ðministerial€duty€of€FBI€agents€to€place€all€302€reports€in€the€caseÐ ¸  Ðfile€with€the€responsibility€of€FBI€supervisors€to€oversee€the€workÐ d´  Ðof€the€agents€under€their€command.€€It€is€the€latter€activity€thatÐ `  Ðgives€rise€to€the€negligent€supervision€claim.€€On€this€issue,€itÐ ¼  Ðis€irrelevant€whether€Agent€Craft€had€discretion€to€determineÐ h¸ Ðwhether€particular€302€reports€should€be€left€out€of€the€case€file.€Ð d ÐòòSeeóó€òòAttallahóó,òòóó€955€F.2d€at€783€(explaining€that€the€judicial€inquiryÐ À Ðmust€focus€"on€the€permissible€range€of€action€available€to€theÐ l¼ Ðgovernment€employee€allegedly€at€fault").Ð h Ðà ` àHaving€identified€the€relevant€activity€ð"ð€the€FBI'sÐ Ä Ðoversight€of€Agent€Craft's€handling€of€the€302s€ð"ð€we€next€mustÐ pÀ  Ðconsider€whether€that€activity€is€discretionary€and€susceptible€toÐ !l" Ðpolicy„related€judgments.€€The€appellants€assign€fault€at€a€generalÐ È"$ Ðlevel€to€the€quality€of€the€supervision.€€At€trial,€they€adducedÐ t$Ä& Ðevidence€that€Agent€Craft€sometimes€initialed€302€reports€and€otherÐ  &p!( Ðdocuments€without€reviewing€them€thoroughly€(even€though€hisÐ Ì'#* Ðsupervisors€had€advised€him€to€be€more€fastidious€in€performingÐ x)È$, Ðthat€task)€and€that€one€supervisor€had€written€a€performanceÐ $+t&. Ðappraisal€suggesting€that€Craft€had€room€for€improvement€in€thisÐ ° Ðarea.€€The€appellants€have€not€shown,€however,€that€Craft'sÐ \¬ Ðsupervisors€were€constrained€by€any€law,€regulation,€or€policy€toÐ X Ðrespond€in€a€particular€way€upon€learning€that€an€agent€was€notÐ ´  Ðproficient€at€a€particular€task.€€By€the€same€token,€they€have€notÐ ` ° Ðadverted€to€any€federal€statute,€regulation,€or€policy€thatÐ  \  Ðdictates€a€specific€regime€of€oversight€that€FBI€Ô_ÔhierarchsÔ_Ô€mustÐ ¸  Ðpractice€to€ensure€that€agents€handle€exculpatory€evidenceÐ d´  Ðproperly.€€Where€no€specific€action€is€required€within€a€categoryÐ `  Ðof€conduct€and€the€government€actors€in€question€have€latitude€toÐ ¼  Ðmake€decisions€and€choose€among€alternative€courses€of€action,€theÐ h¸ Ðconduct€is€discretionary.€€òòSeeóó€òòIrvingóó,€162€F.3d€at€163„64.€€In€thisÐ d Ðinstance,€there€is€ample€room€for€choice€in€the€agency'sÐ À Ðsupervision€of€its€work€force.Ð l¼ Ðà ` àIf€more€were€needed€ð"ð€and€we€doubt€that€it€is€ð"ð€thisÐ h Ðcourt€has€recognized,€in€the€context€of€supervision,€that€in€theÐ Ä Ðabsence€of€a€statutory€or€regulatory€regime€that€sets€outÐ pÀ  Ðparticulars€as€to€how€an€agency€must€fulfill€its€mandate,€theÐ !l" Ðdevelopment€and€management€of€a€supervisory€model€is€a€matter€ofÐ È"$ Ðagency€discretion.€€òòAttallahóó€illustrates€the€point.€€There,€we€heldÐ t$Ä& Ðthat€supervisory€decisions€of€the€Customs€Service€concerning€theÐ  &p!( Ðoversight€of€customs€agents€were€discretionary€in€nature.€€òòSeeóóÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âòòAttallahóó,€955€F.2d€at€784„85.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àThe€appellants€argue€that,€notwithstanding€thisÐ ° Ðâ âprecedent,€the€supervisory€decision€here€is€beyond€the€domain€ofÐ \¬ Ðdiscretion.€€They€assert€that€even€if€a€claim€for€negligentÐ X Ðsupervision€would€generally€be€barred,€the€bar€should€not€applyÐ ´  Ðhere€because€it€is€unlawful€for€a€member€of€the€prosecution€team€toÐ ` ° Ðwithhold€exculpatory€evidence€and€it€cannot€be€within€an€official'sÐ  \  Ðdiscretion€to€permit€unlawful€behavior.€€To€bolster€this€construct,Ð ¸  Ðthey€cite€òòTonellióó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€60€F.3d€492€(8th€Cir.€1995),Ð d´  Ðfor€the€proposition€that€"[Ô_Ôf]ailureÔ_Ô€to€act€after€notice€of€illegalÐ `  Ðaction€does€not€represent€a€choice€based€on€plausible€policyÐ ¼  Ðconsiderations."€€òòId.óó€at€496.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àòòTonellióó€is€easily€distinguishable.€€Theòòóó€court€thereÐ d Ðrecognized€that€"[i]ssues€of€employee€supervision€.€.€.€generallyÐ À Ðinvolve€the€permissible€exercise€of€policy€judgment€and€fall€withinÐ l¼ Ðthe€discretionary€function€exception,"€òòid.óó,€but€left€open€theÐ h Ðpossibility€that€an€employer€who€had€notice€of€ongoing€illegalÐ Ä Ðactivity€would€not€be€entitled€to€claim€that€a€failure€to€act€wasÐ pÀ  Ðwithin€the€scope€of€discretion,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€€It€therefore€determinedÐ !l" Ðthat€summary€judgment€would€be€inappropriate€because€a€factualÐ È"$ Ðdispute€persisted€over€whether€the€employer€had€notice€of€theÐ t$Ä& Ðillegal€actions€of€its€employees.€€òòId.óó€€In€this€case,€unlike€inÐ  &p!( ÐòòTonellióó,€we€have€the€benefit€of€a€full€trial€record,€and€we€findÐ Ì'#* Ðnothing€to€support€the€premise€that€FBI€supervisors€in€theÐ x)È$, ÐMilwaukee€office€had€notice€of€any€illegal€employee€activity.€€AsÐ $+t&. Ða€result,€we€need€not€decide€whether€that€situation€would€beÐ ° Ðsubject€to€the€conclusions€that€we€otherwise€reach.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àThat€ends€this€aspect€of€the€matter.€€In€òòAttallahóó,€weÐ X Ðcommented€that€supervision€over€customs€agents€"certainly€involvesÐ ´  Ða€degree€of€discretion€.€.€.€of€the€kind€that€Congress€sought€toÐ ` ° Ðprotect€through€the€discretionary€function€exception."€òòóó€955€F.2d€atÐ  \  Ð784.€€We€think€that€comment€is€fully€applicable€here.€€Accordingly,Ð ¸  Ðwe€hold€that€the€FBI's€supervision€of€Craft's€job€performance€wasÐ d´  Ðdiscretionary€in€nature.Ð `  Ðà ` àWe€come,€then,€to€the€question€of€whether€thisÐ ¼  Ðdiscretionary€conduct€was€grounded€in€policy.€€On€that€issue,€theÐ h¸ Ðgovernment€benefits€from€the€presumption€that€a€supervisor'sÐ d Ðdiscretionary€acts€are€grounded€in€policy.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð À ÐòòGaubertóó,€499€U.S.€315,€324€(1991);€òòMuniz„Riveraóó,€326€F.3d€at€17.€Ð l¼ ÐIt€is€the€plaintiff's€burden€to€rebut€this€presumption€andÐ h Ðdemonstrate€that€particular€discretionary€conduct€is€notÐ Ä Ðsusceptible€to€policy„related€judgments.€€òòSeeóó€òòShanskyóó,€164€F.3d€atÐ pÀ  Ð692.€€In€this€instance,€the€appellants€have€wholly€failed€to€carryÐ !l" Ðthat€burden.€€We€conclude,€therefore,€that€the€FBI's€supervisoryÐ È"$ Ðdecisions€were€a€matter€of€agency€discretion€and€involved€policyÐ t$Ä& Ðjudgments€of€a€kind€that€the€discretionary€function€proviso€wasÐ  &p!( Ðintended€to€shield.€€òòSeeóó€òòAttallahóó,€955€F.2d€at€784.Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àTo€say€more€on€this€point€would€be€to€paint€the€lily.€Ð x)È$, ÐBased€on€the€foregoing,€we€hold€that€the€discretionary€functionÐ $+t&. Ðproviso,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2680(a),€divests€the€federal€courts€ofÐ ° Ðjurisdiction€over€the€appellants'€claim€of€negligent€supervision.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \¬ Ðò òIV.€€CONCLUSIONó óÐ X Ðà ` àThis€is€a€sad€case.€€It€shows€that€even€the€nation'sÐ Ð  Ðpremier€law€enforcement€agency€sometimes€bungles.€€But€Congress€hasÐ | Ì Ðnever€enacted€a€wholesale€waiver€of€the€federal€government'sÐ ( x  Ðsovereign€immunity€from€suit,€so€it€is€unsurprising€that€the€FTCAÐ Ô$  Ðdoes€not€cover€every€error€by€a€federal€agent.€€Neither€of€the€twoÐ €Ð  Ðclaims€at€issue€here€ð"ð€one€for€negligence€and€the€other€forÐ ,|  Ðnegligent€supervision€ð"ð€comes€within€the€carapace€of€the€carefullyÐ Ø( Ðlimited€waiver€of€federal€sovereign€immunity€that€the€FTCA€denotes.Ð „Ô Ðà ` àWe€need€go€no€further.€€We€hold€that€the€district€courtÐ 0€ Ðlacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€to€hear€the€appellants'€claims.€Ð Ü, ÐOn€this€ground,€we€affirm€the€entry€of€judgment€in€favor€of€theÐ ˆØ ÐUnited€States.Ð 4„ ÐÌò òòòAffirmedóóó ó.