about the law’s reporting requirements; it evidenced an obstinate refusal to comply with the law. C. Relief Ordered by the District Court Defendants urge this court to vacate both the monetary award entered by the district court as excessive and unsupported by the evidence and the permanent injunction as overly broad in scope. We review these challenges to the awarded relief for an abuse of discretion. See Shain v. Ellison, 356 F.3d 211, 214 (2d Cir.2004) (reviewing permanent injunction for abuse of discretion); United States v. J.B. Williams Co., 498 F.2d 414, 438 (2d Cir.1974) (“[DJetermination of the amount of penalties within the maximum is committed to the informed discretion of the district judge[.]”); see also United States v. Green Drugs, 905 F.2d 694, 698 (3d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). We will find such abuse only if the district
holding that the rule 21 severance rendered the district court verdict a final and appealable judgment under 28 usc  1291 holding conviction for cce murder 21 usc  848e1 is a separate offense from a cce 21 usc  848c holding double jeopardy clause applicable to civil penalties under the false claims act recognizing district courts discretion in assessing civil penalties under 21 usc  842c holding the mcarn exception requirefs that the acts complained of warrant the imposition of criminal penalties as opposed to mere civil penalties