each instance in which the district court exercises its fee-setting discretion, it must articulate its considerations, its analysis, its reasons and its conclusions touching on each of the five factors delineated in Ursic.” Anthuis v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 971 F.2d 999, 1012 (3d Cir.1992). That the District Court failed to sufficiently set forth its analysis of the five Ursic factors is plain from the face of its order accompanying Ryan II. In refusing to award fees and costs, the District Court wrote only “[i]n its discretion, the court will decline to award counsel fees in favor of the Plaintiff.” Significantly, the District Court did not mention any of the Ursic factors. Such a complete disregard of Ur-sic fails to satisfy our requirements. See Anthuis, 971 F.2d at. 1012 (<HOLDING>). It would not be appropriate for this Court to
recognizing these five factors recognizing that among other factors the location and level of the precedent as well as its age are important factors in a qualified immunity analysis holding that the district courts dismissal of a juror after five weeks of deliberations violated the defendants right to a unanimous jury because the record evidence suggested the juror found the evidence insufficient for a conviction holding the bias analysis insufficient to support its decisions holding the district courts recitation of two of the five ursic factors without analysis insufficient