(14) days of the entry of judgment. 1 . Defendants also cite In re Lombardo Fruit & Produce Co., 12 F.3d 110 (8th Cir.1993); however, that case involves notice requirements under PACA and is not germane to the issues in the instant case. 2 . The total sum of $25,243.95 represents the principal debt of $24,553.70 plus prejudgment interest of $690.25 calculated from October 7, 2000 — thirty days after the last produce was sold to Cape on thirty-day payment terms. In its discretion, the court has determined to grant Plaintiff’s request for prejudgment interest and has determined the prevailing post-judgment interest rate of 2.24% per annum is an appropriate prejudgment interest rate in this case. See, e.g., Smith v. Am. Int'l Life Assurance Co. of New York, 50 F.3d 956 (11th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Indus. Risk Insurers v. M.A.N.
holding that the proper rate for prejudgment interest is the rate fixed by the parties in a contract holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest at the colorado statutory rate of 8 percent holding that it is proper to award prejudgment interest at the legal rate from the date the monies were due under the contract holding that award and rate of prejudgment interest are within trial courts discretion holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion