and district courts have held that the FCA’s treble damages provision is not punitive. See, e.g., Stevens, 162 F.3d at 207; United States v. Brekke, 97 F.3d 1043, 1048 (8th Cir.1996); United States v. Barnette, 10 F.3d 1553, 1559-60 (11th Cir.1994); Long, 999 F.Supp. at 85-86. But see Graber, 8 F.Supp.2d at 349. The Supreme Court has held that the federal government “is entitled to rough remedial justice.” Halper, 490 U.S. at 446, 109 S.Ct. 1892. Halper reasoned that the multiple recovery allowed under the FCA was compensatory, not punitive, because it was rationally related to the government’s loss of the False Claims Act is different from the ‘ordinary case’ discussed in Halper,” the case in which the damages were a fixed penalty plus double damages); Barnette, 10 F.3d at 1560 (<HOLDING>). In an attempt to argue that the FCA’s treble
holding that under the first amendment where there is no proof of actual malice damages are limited to actual injury which excludes punitive damages but is not limited to outofpocket loss holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable holding a court may not award punitive damages holding that a 32 to 1 ratio of compensation to actual damages is not punitive