portion of the award”). 20 . See 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2815 & nn. 2-3 (2008) (citing Kennon v. Gilmer, 131 U.S. 22, 9 S.Ct. 696, 33 L.Ed. 110 (1889)); DeCenteno v. Gulf Fleet Crews, Inc., 798 F.2d 138, 142 (5th Cir.1986); Matador Drilling Co. v. Post, 662 F.2d 1190, 1198 (5th Cir.1981); see also Hetzel v. Prince William County, 523 U.S. 208, 211, 118 S.Ct. 1210, 140 L.Ed.2d 336 (1998) (finding that a “Court of Appeals' writ of mandamus, requiring the District Court to enter judgment for a lesser amount than that determined by the jury without allowing petitioner the option of a new trial, cannot be squared with the Seventh Amendment.”) (citing Kennon, 131 U.S. at 29-30, 9 S.Ct. 696); Sloane v. Equifax Info. Sens., 510 F.3d 495, 503 (4th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Bisbal-Ramos v. City ofMayaguez, 467 F.3d 16,
holding that the record supported the district courts award of damages holding that the court will not parse the record for evidence of compensatory or nominal damage to justify an award of punitive damages only holding that the seventh amendment precludes an appellate court from replacing an award of compensatory damages with one of the courts own choosing holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages