omitted). 17 . Id. (quoting Gilbert, 198 F.3d at 1304) (internal quotation marks omitted). 18 . See Gilbert, 198 F.3d at 1298-1303 (providing a summary of the detailed legislative history). Gilbert reveals that the Hyde Amendment was enacted to provide successful defendants a remedy when the Government acted to ruin their reputations or to bankrupt them through years of wrongful prosecutions. Id. at 1299. Furthermore, concerns about the Hyde Amendment’s reach also resulted in Congress giving the district court discretion not to award fees, even when it found that the Government's position was vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith, "if the court finds that special circumstances make such an award unjust.” Id. at 1302(internal quotation marks omitted). 19 . See Lindberg, 220 F.3d at 1125(<HOLDING>). 20 . Appellants also claim that the
holding that the knowledge requisite to knowing violation of a statute is factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of the law holding that the governments lack of direct evidence as to defendants knowledge does not demonstrate that its case was baseless holding that evi dence establishing lack of criminal intent does not necessarily demonstrate in a civil case that the act is not intentional holding misrepresentation exception does not bar plaintiffs negligence claim where governments lack of communication was collateral to the essential act that spawned the damages holding that mere fact that clerk assigned defendants case a civil docket number did not demonstrate that the district court failed to treat the case as a criminal matter