computed from its own shares (200), Ella’s holdings (25), and the shares owned by Ella’s children (John — 40, Hank — 40, Ellen Hicks — 40). Following the redemption, the Trust’s constructive holdings were reduced to 145 shares (25 owned by Ella, 120 held by her children). Only 11 other shares remained actually outstanding (Hicks — 5, Winkler — 6); therefore, the Trust held 345/356 shares, or 97%, before and 145/156b shares, or 93%, immediately after the redemption. When the district court made this comparison it included the seventy-five option shares held by Hicks. Accordingly, the district court determined that the Trust held 80% of the company before redemption (345/431), and 62.8% after redemption (145/231). Because the Trust no longer controlled the company after the redemption (<HOLDING>), the district court concluded that the
holding that a fee substantially less than the lodestar amount is permissible holding less than twothirds of the stock holding that apprendi does not apply where the defendant was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum holding that demands for benefits not less than 10 million dollars contributions greater than 50 million dollars and less than 100 million dollars and attorneys fees not less than 150000000 were ambiguous and did not satisfy the sum certain requirement holding that the district courts failure to explain the effect of supervised release was harmless where the maximum term of incarceration under the actual sentence of imprisonment and supervised release less than six years as well as his worstcase scenario less than nine years was less than the maximum term of incarceration twenty years al lowed by law