questions have been evasive, contradictory and not credible.” Id. at 10-11. The Court also found that the testimony of Star’s FCC counsel, Timothy Brady, strained credibility. Id. at 11. When considering sanctions, a district court may consider all the circumstances surrounding the alleged violations, including a party’s misconduct in related cases. Atkins v. Fischer, 232 F.R.D. 116, 129-31 (D.D.C.2005) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 635, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)); Travelers Ins. Co. v. St. Jude Hosp. of Kenner, La., Inc., 38 F.3d 1414, 1417-18 (5th Cir.1994) (affirming award of sanctions when district court considered collateral bankruptcy proceedings in its sanctions order); see also Johnson v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 289 F.3d 452, 456-57 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The Bankruptcy Court also found: This Chapter
holding that remand for explicit findings was not necessary where it was readily apparent that the trial  court accepted one partys testimony and rejected the other partys holding that the district court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the patentee acted in subjective bad faith and should consider whether circumstantial evidence would support an inference of bad faith holding that party may not recover damages for breach of contract where its own bad faith caused the other partys breach holding that a sentencing court may consider acquitted conduct or uncharged criminal conduct holding that the tax court would be remiss not to consider the partys bad conduct in other cases