(D.C.Cir.1990) (declining to defer to Secretary’s interpretation of the litigation interest provision of the Act because "the Secretary has never issued any regulation, ruling or policy statement indicating the ... construction now urged upon the Court”). 4 . The Hospitals also argue that 1 U.S.C. § 1 is inapplicable because Congress employed the definite article "the,” rather than the indefinite article "an," to modify the words "amount in controversy.” In their view, the court should not construe a single noun to include the plural if the noun is preceded by the definite article “the.” We reject this argument because it is overly formalistic and inconsistent with Supreme Court case law. See, e.g., Barr v. United States, 324 U.S. 83, 90-92, 65 S.Ct. 522, 525-526, 89 L.Ed. 765 (1945) (<HOLDING>). 5 . The jurisdictional provision of the Act
holding a defendant may not be convicted of more than one count of dissemination of matter harmful to minors based on one occurrence even if there was more than one victim holding that the buying rate for foreign currency under the tariff act of 1930 31 usc  372 included more than one buying rate holding under texas version of the recognition act that public policy exception is not triggered simply because the body of foreign law upon which the judgment is based is different from the law of the forum or because the foreign law is more favorable to the judgment creditor than the law of the forum holding that it was plain error for trial court to allow more than one conviction of grossly negligent operation of a vehicle where more than one person was injured holding that a defendant may not be convicted of multiple offenses under  922g on the basis that he belonged to more than one prohibited class or that he simultaneously possessed more than one firearm