fine for contempt exceeds the $5,000 threshold and entitles her to a jury trial. We disagree. The Supreme Court has made clear that $5,000 carnes no “talismanic significance,” and that the critical question remains whether the fine imposed is “of such magnitude” that a jury trial is warranted. Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 477, 95 S.Ct. 2178, 45 L.Ed.2d 319 (1975). Shell offers no explanation for why a $6,000 fine, rather than a $5,000 fine, is of “such magnitude” that it should entitle her to a jury trial under this criterion. We agree with the opinions of other courts that have held that fines in excess of $5,000 — so long as they are reasonable — do not give rise to a constitutional right to a trial by jury. See United States v. Clavette, 135 F.3d 1308, 1309-10 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Unterburger, 97 F.3d 1413,
holding that 25000 fine did not trigger defendants constitutional right to a jury trial holding that there is both a statutory and a constitutional right to a jury trial under erisa because congress lacks constitutional authority to limit right to a jury recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights holding that 10000 fine imposed on a labor union does not trigger assumed jury trial right holding that fine of 10000 was not sufficiently serious to trigger the defendants jury trial right