the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. at 1965 (quotation marks, citations, and footnote omitted). Although Plaintiffs never reached trial, they appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for new trial, and Defendants agree that review of the legal rulings are de novo. See Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir.2005). Defendants do not argue, as they seemingly could, that Plaintiffs’ arguments should be subjected to a higher standard of review because Plaintiffs raised new arguments. See id. Nor do they argue that Plaintiffs’ motion was actually a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro cedure. See Barrs v. Sullivan, 906 F.2d 120, 120 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Since the district court seemingly reviewed
holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding that the standard of review under rule 60 is abuse of discretion holding that the standard of review for an award of statutory damages is even more deferential than an abuse of discretion standard recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard holding that the standard of review is abuse of discretion and an appeal from denial of rule 60b relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review