comment.” Fogerty, 510 U.S. at 534, 114 S.Ct. 1023; see also Fulfillment Servs., Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 528 F.3d 614, 624 (9th Cir.2008) (explaining that “[h]ad Congress aspired to such a radical departure [from the American Rule], it no doubt would have so indicated with explicit language to that effect”). Legislative history that “is at best ambiguous ... is clearly insufficient to alter the accepted meaning of the statutory term,” “[pjarticularly in view of the ‘American Rule’ that attorney’s fees will not be awarded absent ‘explicit statutory authority.’ ” Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 607-08, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001); accord Kwan Fun Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1044 (9th Cir.2013) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). In other areas where we require an
holding that even where there are  contrary indications in the statutes legislative history we do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category recognizing that legislative history is not used to create ambiguity where statutory language is clear holding that legislative history cannot supply a clear statement holding that substantive criminal statute could not be applied retrospectively because there was nothing  in the language or the legislative history that was a clear and unequivocal expression of legislative intent to rebut presumption of prospective application only