Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): F.2d 1345, 1347 (9th Cir.1981) (en banc) (per curiam). As Judge Friendly has observed, It is in the last degree undesirable to read into a procedural statute or rule, fixing the time within which action may be taken, a hidden exception or qualification that will result in the rights of clients being sacrificed when capable counsel have reasonably relied on the language. United States v. American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers, 331 F.2d 117, 119 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 997, 84 S.Ct. 1917, 12 L.Ed.2d 1048 (1964). Accordingly, most courts have tended to construe the Rule broadly and to apply the 60-day provision when the government has a substantial interest in the case. See, e.g., In re Paris Air Crash of March 3, 1974, 578 F.2d 264, 265 (9th Cir.1978) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Here, HHS was named in the original 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal (B) holding that when the united states is a named party participates in the general action and is or may be interested in the outcome of an appeal even though it is not a party to the appeal it is a party for purposes of frap 4a (C) holding that it is not (D) holding that an arbitration agreement enforceable against party who signed the agreement even where the other party did not sign it because generally it is enough that the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced signs it (E) holding that identification of appellant in notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and that the failure to name a party in a notice to appeal constitutes a failure of that party to appeal
Output (English): holding that identification of appellant in notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and that the failure to name a party in a notice to appeal constitutes a failure of that party to appeal