to acknowledge fault, saying, "Your Honor, that was my interpretation.'' 31 . If we had found the sanctions to properly rest on Rule 11 grounds and not solely on counsel's vexatious conduct, we would be considerably more concerned by the absence of an opportunity for the presentation of " 'factual material that might have led [plaintiffs’ counsel] to form a reasonable belief that the' statements made in [the pleadings] were supportable.” Media Duplication Servs., 928 F.2d at 1239 (quoting Bay State Towing Co. v. Barge Am. 21, 899 F.2d 129, 131 (1st Cir.1990)). 32 . By the same token, though, we have held that a court has discretion to award less than the full amount required to compensate the injured party. See Cruz, 896 F.2d at 634-35. 33 . See, e.g., In re Nosek, 609 F.3d at 10 (<HOLDING>); Remexcel Managerial Consultants, Inc. v.
holding sanction of 250000 under federal rule of bankruptcy procedure 9011 to be excessive and reducing to 5000 holding that regarding rule 9011 this court is only concerned with documents filed  in this court and thus filings in state court provide no basis to impose sanctions under rule 9011 holding rule 11 sanction of 20000 to be excessive and reducing to 6500 holding that rule 9011 allows a bankruptcy court to sanction attorneys parties and individuals that sign and file false documents in badfaith with the court holding that case law interpreting rule 11 may be use to interpret rule 9011