1187 (D.C.Cir.2008), in which we held that we “retained jurisdiction over cases pending pursuant to former § 1605(a)(7) when the Congress enacted the NDAA.” Id. at 1191. CONCLUSION We affirm the district court’s denial of Libya’s motion to dismiss on the ground of sovereign immunity. We dismiss the appeal with regard to the other issues raised by Libya. 1 . We note that plaintiffs concession regarding punitive damages applies only to its claims filed under the 1996 Amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. Pub.L. No. 104-132, § 221, 110 Stat. 1214, 1241-42, repealed by national Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub.L. No. 110-181, § 1083, 122 Stat. 3, 338-44 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605A); see Simon v. Republic of Iraq, 529 F.3d 1187, 1191 (D.C.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). It does not apply to any claim that may be
holding that a clear indication from congress is the simplest way to show that a statute is enacted under the fourteenth amendment holding that the commissions rulemaking authority under  201b extends to the implementation of provisions enacted in 1996 recognizing that congress has specifically abrogated the eleventh amendment defense when legislating pursuant to  5 of the fourteenth amendment and its article i  8 plenary power over commerce but refusing to extend authority to abrogate to legislation enacted pursuant to the indian commerce clause the indian gaming regulatory act holding that congress could abrogate the eleventh amendment pursuant to the commerce clause holding that the courts retained jurisdiction over cases pending pursuant to the 1996 amendment when the congress enacted the new terrorism exception