the government’s construction, POGO as well as Berman must be penalized the full $383,600. This is not to say that the payor should not be penalized. But it is to say that the government has articulated “no sound policy interest” — or any reason at all — that Congress might have had for a mandatory doubling of the payor’s loss in every case. And that is further support for the proposition that Congress did not intend the construction upon which the government insis 393 (2d Cir.2004) (noting that "the Second Circuit has held that the term 'willfully' in criminal statutes typically does not require the government to prove the defendant's specific intent to violate the particular criminal statute in question”). 11 . See, e.g., United States v. McLean, 131 Fed.Appx. 34 (4th. Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Preciado-Hernandez, No.
holding that the test for good faith is the actual belief of the party and not the reasonableness of that belief holding that a good faith belief that a firearm is inoperable is not a viable defense to 18 usc  922g holding that good faith is a defense to the willful filing of false statements under 18 usc  1001 recognizing that evidence of government knowledge of the defendants conduct could be part of a defendants argument that it did not knowingly submit false claims holding that a good faith belief that the defendants were participating in a lawful investor program was not a defense to a charge of knowingly passing false mortgage instruments