B The government argues, in the alternative, that even if § 216(b) gives the district court discretion to impose a penalty in an amount less than the unlawful payment, the court “abused its discretion in considering evidence of POGO’s good faith” without “holding a fair hearing to provide the Government with the opportunity to supplement the record” on that issue. Gov’t Br. 57-58. We note that the government never expressly sought such a hearing, but rather described to the court the evidence it would proffer if the court were to hold one. U.S. Resp. to [POGO’s] Req. that the Court Impose No Penalty Upon the Organization at 6-7 (Feb. 29, 2008). In any event, because we are remanding the case for a new trial, the government will have an opportunity to request a penalty hear .Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). But see United States v. George, 386 F.3d
holding that 18 usc  1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc  1001 holding that 18 usc  1920 the misdemeanor false statement provision of the federal employees compensation act feca preempted 18 usc  1001 because  41 of feca expressly repealed all inconsistent statutes holding that good faith is a defense to the willful filing of false statements under 18 usc  1001 holding that 18 usc  1001 which criminalizes making false statements to a united states agency is specifically made applicable to the postal service by 39 usc  410b2 holding that a good faith belief that a firearm is inoperable is not a viable defense to 18 usc  922g