is completed and move that the court, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4), vacate the award on that basis. V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court order in Morrison’s case, that, although the challenged a case-by-case approach, however, with the Tenth Circuit taking a significantly different approach to the case-by-case approach than other circuits. See Bradford v. Rockwell Semiconductor Sys., Inc., 238 F.3d 549, 555 (4th Cir.2001) ("Notably, although Shankle found that the fee-splitting provision rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable, it framed its analysis in terms of the complaining party's actual inability to afford the arbitration costs and fees.”). 5 . See Paladino v. Avnet Computer Techs., Inc., 134 F.3d 1054, 1062 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). 6 . See Cole v. Burns Int’l Sec. Servs., 105
holding that delay in excess of three years after conclusion of direct review does not constitute reasonable diligence holding that steep costs at least constitute a legitimate basis for a conclusion that the clause does not comport with statutory policy holding that even when there is a legitimate government purpose the discrimination must bear at least some rational relationship to that purpose holding that offer of judgment statute does not provide a basis for an award of attorney fees and costs unless dismissal is with prejudice holding that probation does not constitute a sentence