F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT October 22, 20 07 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1027 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00917 -CV -JOF -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us RICHAR D L. PROCHNOW , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er 22, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , CA RN E S an d F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

This is Richard L . P rochnow’ s appeal from the j udgm ent of the district court as se ssi ng c ivi l pe na lti es a ga ins t hi m and o rd er ing dis gor ge m en t of pr of its be ca use of his vio la tio n of

the F ed er al T ra de Co m

m iss ion ’ s T el em ar

ke tin g S al es Ru le (T SR), 16 C . F. R. P ar

t 31 0, and o f the te rm s of ac onse nt d ec re e en te re d in to b y h i m an dth e F T C i n1 9 9 6 . F o r th e r e a s o n s s e tf

o rth b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. I. In199 5 P ro ch nowf

ound ed D ir ec t S al es , I nc . , w hic h w as the ge ne ra l and controllin g partner of P rochnow’ s telem arketing com pany , D irect S ales In te rn at ion al , L P (D SI ). D SI c ontra ct ed w ith“ le ad

br oke r” or ganiz at ion s—g ro ups who solicited orders from consum ers for m agazine package subscriptions . Af ter the lead broker m ade an initial sale, it would refer the sale to DS I, and a D SI em ploy ee w ouldcall the custom er to verif y the order. D SI e m

ploy ees used standard iz ed

sc ri pts to m ak e the ve ri fi catio n c al ls. I f a D SI e m plo y ee w as able to ve ri fy the le ad br oke r’ s sa le , it

w oul d pl ac e a co rr es pond ing or de r w iththe pu bl is he r of

th e m ag azi ne . InD ec em be r of 199 6 P ro ch nowe nte re d in to a c onse nt d ec re e w iththe Fe d er al Tr ad e C o m

m i s s i o n , t h e p u rp o s e o f w h i ch wa s t o s t o p s o m e o f P ro ch n o w’s te le m ar ke tin g pr ac tic es . I nc lud ed in the c onse nt d ec re e w as apr ovi sio n p r o h i b i t i n g P r o c h n o wan dh i s a g e n t s f r o m:3

(g) Making any

ref erence or statem ent concerning “ a fe w dollars per w ee k, ” “ 60 m onths, ” or

any oth er state m en t a s to asum

of m one y or duration or period o f tim e in connection with a subscripti on contract or oth er pur ch as e ag re em en t whic h do es not in fa ct pr ovi de , a t the opt ionof the pur ch as er , f

or the paym en t of

the state d sum , a t the st at edin te rv al , andov er t he st at eddu rat io n o r pe rio d o f ti m e; . . . (h ) Fa ili ng, in the c as e of P D S [P ai d D ur ing S er

vic e] P lan sa le s, to cl earl y r ev ea l or al ly

pr ior to the ti m e the sub sc ri pti on c ontra ct is agreed to by

the custom er and in writing on the subscriptio n order form and the sales agreem ent (or separate schedule), with such conspicu ousn ess and clarity as w ill likelyto be read by the purchaser, the following term s of the subscriptio n order:

. . . . (i i) T he tot al c ost

of e ac h publi catio n and a ll the pub lic at ion s co ve redby the co nt ract . Inoth er w or ds, the c onse nt d ec re e fo rb ad e Pr oc hnowand h is a ge nts f ro m quo tin g to custom ers the per- we ek cost of a m agazine package unless the custom ers w ere al low ed to pay f or the pa ck ag es on a

w ee kly ba sis , and i t r equir ed

P ro ch nowand his a ge nts to inf

orm c ust om er s of

the c ost of e ac h in div idu al m ag az ine and the ov eral l co stof t he m ag azi ne pa ck ag e. Through scripts provi ded by Prochnow’ s representatives, the FT C lear ned that his agents we re still quoti ng weekly rates to custom ers during sales ve ri fi catio n c al ls. T he F T C c au tio ne d P ro chnowthat he ne ed ed to cl ar if y to cu sto m er s th at

the y c oul d no t m ak e w ee kly

paym en ts t o purc ha se the m ag az ine pa ck ag es . H ow ev er , in earl y 199 7 P ro ch now ’ s a ge nts be gan qu oti ng the pr ic e of4

the m ag az ine pa ck ag es a s f oll ow s: (1 ) the y

w oul d qu ote aw ee kly

r at e (t ota l c ost of the pa ck ag e div ide d by

the num be r of w ee ks the c ust om er

w oul d r ec ei ve the pa ck ag e) ; ( 2) the y

w oul d a dd the tot al c ost

pe r w ee k f

or a ll m ag az ine s to be distribu ted during th e custom er’ s subs cription; (3) they would divid e that num

ber b y twe l v e; an d(4 ) t h ey wo u l dm ak e t h atfi g u re th e a m o u n to f t h e c u s t o m er ’s m onthly paym en t. T he n, w he n qu oti ng the pa ck ag e’ s to ta l c ost , the y w oul d us e the te rm “ tot al va lue ” an d w oul d in fo rm c ust om er s th at

the pa ck ag e re pr es en te d a ste ep dis co unt

of f of the ne w sst an d pr ic e. T he ups hot is that a ft er

e nte ri ng the co nse nt d ec re e in 1 996, P ro ch now ’ s a ge nts w er e sti ll quot ing w ee kly pr ic es and usi ng the te rm

“ tot al va lue , ” w hic h w as m isl ea din g be ca use c ust om er s di d no t unde rs tand “ tot al va lue ” to b e the sam e as the ir “ tot al c ost . ” D ur ing 199 8 and 1999 , P ro ch now ’ s a ge nts pe rs ist ed in fa ili ng t o a dvi se c ust om er s of the pr ic e of indiv idual m agazines and continu ed to refe r to the total price as the “ total value.” Pr oc hnow ’ s c ust om er s w er e tol d th at D SI ne ed ed

to be able to re ly

on the cu sto m er ’ s w or d and b e as sur ed that the c ust om er

w oul d f ulf ill his obl igatio ns unde r the a gr ee m en t be ca use P ro ch nowha d to pr ep ay pub lis he rs f

or the c ost s of th e mag az i n e. Th i s wa s n o ttru e i nm o s tca s es , a n di nan y ev en t , P ro ch n o w’s ty pic al pur ch as e pr ic e fr om the pub lis he r w as about

10 t o 20 pe rc en t of

w ha t the cu sto m er s pa id, and e ve n th at a m ount w as pa id n ot i n a dvanc e but ins te ad dur ing5

the c our se of

the c ust om er ’ s purc ha se pe ri od. I n a ddi tio n, P ro ch nowpa id n oth ing fo r so m e m ag azi ne s, wh ic h wer e te rm ed“ zero rem it ” su bs cri pt io ns . In199 8 P ro ch now , thr oughhis a ge nts , be gan se lli ng m em be rs hip s ina

“ bu y in g s erv ic e” atth e en d o f su bs cri pt io n v eri fic at io n c al ls . Su ppos ed ly , the se rv ic e wou ldall ow m em be rs to bu y

ot he r go od s an d s erv ic es at d is co un t p ric es . As part of the sales pitch for the service, the verifier would offer

the custom er a 30- day , “ no o bli ga tio n” m em be rs hip in the c lub . T he c ust om er w as tol d th at

the co st o f the se rv ic e af

te r the 30- day

tr ia l w oul d be am onthly f ee bil le d to the ir credit card. Prochnow’ s verifiers did not tell the custom er, however, that enrollm ent would be autom atic unless they called the buy ing service to cancel the ir m em be rs hip dur ing the ini tia l 30 -d ay pe ri od, and tha t the ir

c re dit c ar d w oul d be ch arg edforan en ti re y ear’s m em be rs hi p a s s oo n a s t he tri al pe rio d e xp ire d. N or did the ve ri fi er s pr ovi de the c ust om er s w iththe buy ing se rv ic e’ s te le phon e nu m be r. Pro ch no w in it ia ll y

m ad e so m e at te m

pt s t o c om

pl y wit h t he co ns en t d ecre e. In199 6 and e ar ly

199 7, he hir ed

an a tto rn ey

to co nsul t the F T C a

bout the language of the scripts used b y the lead brokers and by

the verifier s. A lso, he had se ve ra l atto rn ey s c ondu ct c om pli an ce tr ai nin g m ee tin gs w ithle ad br oke rs to inf orm the m of w ha t w as ne ce ssary

to co m ply w iththe c onse nt d ec re e an d w ith6

the TS R. How ever, any

resolve to com

ply with the consent decree and the TS R fad edin 19 97 an d was no n- ex is te ntdu rin g 1 99 8 a nd19 99 . T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing s of

f ac t i llu str at e the de ce pti ve na tur e of Pr oc hnow ’ s bu sin es s pr ac tic es . O n ave ra ge , onl y 60 p er ce nt o f the sa le s pa sse d to DS I by a lead broker we re a ctually verified. A nd the ty

pical verification call was m ad e by aD SI e m

plo y ee w ho t al ke d to o f

as t t o be und er sto od b y

ape rs on o f average intelligence. N ot surprisin gly , a bout70 percent of the sales that w ere ve ri fi ed by D SI w er e ei the r canc el le d or w en t i nto c oll ec tio n be tw ee n th e se co nd an d th ir d m onths a ft er

ve ri fi catio n. F ro m

199 6 to 199 9, the Be tte r Bu sin es s Bure auof A tlanta r ec ei ve d an ave ra ge of

one c om pla int aday r el at ing to D SI , and Pr oc hnowkne wof

tho se c om

pla int s. E xc ep t f

or c ust om er s who h ad

c ont ac te d a governm ent authority , any one who attem pted to cancel his account was gree ted wit h n ew sa le s p it ch es . T he U nit ed

S ta te s f ile d th e co m

pla int in thi s c as e ag ai nst

P ro ch nowin Apr il 2002 se ek ing c ivi l pe na lti es , e qui ta ble m one tary

r el ie f, and a

pe rm an en t i nj unc tio n fo r vio latio ns o f the T SR and the 199 6 c onse nt d ec re e. I n a ddi tio n to the c onse nt decree violatio ns we have a lready discussed, the district court foundthat Pr oc hnow ’ s e m

plo y ee s vi olate d th e T SR by : ( 1) te lli ng c onsum er s th at the com pany pre-paid publish ers for the m agazines, which w as not alway s the case;7

(2 ) fa ili ng t o in fo rm

c onsum er s th at

the ir c re dit c ar ds w oul d be bil le d f

or the buy ing club m em

berships un less the consu m er c alled within thirty day s to cancel the m em bership; (3) failing to prov ide inform ation that would h ave perm itted co nsum er s to m ak e tho se c al ls; ( 4) a dvi sin g c onsum er s of aw ee kly c ost f or the m ag az ine pa ck ag es , a lth oughthe re w as no w ee kly paym en t pl an ; and ( 5) f

ai lin g to in fo rm co ns um ers of t he to ta l co stof t he pa ck ag e th ey were o rd eri ng . Af ter finding that Prochnow had violated th e consent decree and the TS R, the c ourt a sse sse d c ivi l pe na lti es a ga ins t P ro ch nowin the a m ount of $5, 455, 280, an d i t o rd ereddi sg or ge m en t o f il le ga l p ro fit s i n t he am ou ntof $ 1,6 85 ,00 0. II . On appeal P rochnow raises f our issues, contendin g that the dist rict court er re d inf ind ing that he , thr oughD SI , ha d vi olate d th e co nse nt d ec re e; in de te rm ini ng the a m ount

of his c ivi l pe na lty ; and i n de te rm ini ng the a m ount of dis gor ge m en t. H e al so c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c ivi l pe na lty and disgo rgem ent order violated his Eighth Am endm ent rights. W e address eac h co nte nti on i n turn . A. Pr oc hnowarg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt i nc or

re ct ly f ound that D SI ’ s sc ri pts ha d m isl ed

c onsum er s and b re ac he d th e co nse nt d ec re e pr ovi sio ns r eg ar din g th e8

quot ing of weekly

rates, statem ent of total costs, and upsellin g. T he district co urt’ s or de r lay s ou t i n de ta il the spe ci fi c vio la tio ns o f the c onse nt d ec re e an d expla ins the na tur e an d duratio n of tho se vio la tio ns. T he e vid en ce und er ly ing tho se f ind ing s is ove rwhe lm ing , and the c ourt c om m itt ed no e rr or s of

lawin re ac hin g th em . W e re

j ec t P ro ch now ’ s arg um en t tha t the vio la tio ns w er e not r ea lly vi ol at io ns or a t b es t wer e m erel y tec hn ic al vi ol at io ns . B. As f or Prochnow’ s attack on the am ountof the civil penalty the district co urt a sse sse d, w e re vie wthe und er ly ing f ac tf ind ing s r es ult ing in that a sse ssm en t onlyfor cle ar e rror. Fed. R. Civ. P . 52(a) . “ Clear err or is a highlydefer ential standard of r ev ie w . ” H olt on v . Ci ty

of T hom as vil le S ch . D ist . , 425 F . 3d 1 325, 1350 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ppl ic at ionof

tho se f ac ts t o the lawf or an a buse of dis cr et ion . U nit ed

S ta te s v. N at ’ l F in. S er

vs. , I nc . , 98 F . 3d 131, 140 ( 4thCi r. 199 6) ; Unit ed S ta te s v. Re ad er ’ s D ige st A ss’ n, 662 F . 2d 9 55, 967– 69 (3d Cir. 1981). T he F ed er al T ra de Co m

m iss ionA ct

auth or iz es dis tr ic t c ourts t o aw ar d c ivi l pe na lti es and t o gr an t i nj unc tio ns and o the r equit ab le r el ie f w he re an F T C o rd er or co nse nt d ec re e ha s be envio late d. 15 U . S. C. § 45 ( l). I n de te rm ini ng the a m ount of ac ivi l pe na lty , the dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de rs : “ (1 ) the goo d or ba d f ai th o f the9

de fe ndants ; ( 2) the inj ur

y to the pub lic ; ( 3) the de fe ndants ’ abil ity to pay ; ( 4) the de sir e to e lim inate the be ne fi ts d er ive d by the vio la tio ns; and ( 5) the ne ce ssi ty of vi nd ic at in g t he au th or it y

of t he FTC.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Danu be Carp etMi ll s, In c., 737 F.2d 988 , 993 (11th Cir. 1984) (quoting Reader ’ s Digest A ss’ n, 662 F.2d at 967 & n.18). I n additio n, 15 U. S. C. § 45(m )(1)( A) provides th at a district court m ay im pose civil pen alties for violations of the T SR, if the governm ent establishes th atth e d efen da ntvi ol at edth atrul e wit h e it he r actua l o r im pl ie d k no wled ge . T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that P ro ch now , thr oughhis a ge nts , ha d vi olate d th e co nse nt d ec re e an d th e T SR by m ak ing pr ohi bit ed

w ee kly c ost de cl ar at ion s and b y fa ili ng t o a de quate ly

dis cl ose the tot al pr ic e of the m ag az ine pa ck ag e. B as ed on the evidence, including that su bm itted during a nine-day hearing, the district court found th at Prochnow had violated the TS R because he knewthat DS I em ploy ees w er e m ak ing pr ep ay

m en t m isr ep re se ntatio ns t o in duc e cu sto m er s to buy the m ag az ine pa ck ag es . T he c ourt c re dit ed P ro ch now ’ s te sti m ony

that he did

not pe rs ona lly

kno wthat D SI ve ri fi er s w er e not dis cl osi ng a ll ne ce ssary

inf orm at ion during th e buy ing-service “ upsells ,” but it nevertheless foun d that he was co ntr oll ing D SI ’ s op er at ion s and the re fo re sho uld have kno w n th at

il le ga l up se lls w er e oc curr ing . C onse que ntl y , the c ourt i m put ed kno w le dge of

the ups el ls t o Pro ch no w.10

A ft er lay ing out

the na tur e of

the vio la tio ns i t f

ound , the c ourt se t f

orth i ts finding s on their duration . The c ourt acknowledged that som e violation s had oc curr ed in 1997 but

dis re gard ed

tho se be ca

use it w an te d to c re dit

P ro ch nowf

or his e ff orts at c om

pli an ce dur ing that y ear. T he re fo re , it se t January

1, 199 8 thr oughD ec em

be r 31, 199 9 a s th e re le vant t im e pe ri od f or c al cu la tin g th e ci vil pe na lt y forth e v io la ti on s o f th e co ns en t d ecre e an d TSR . T he dis tr ic t c ourt the n c onsi de re d th e inj ur y to the pub lic , w hic h w as tw ofo ld . The co ur t fo un d t ha t o ve r ha lf o f th e p ur ch as es were ca nc el le d b et ween two and three m onth s after

verification andthat m ost of tho se cancellations occurred because custom ers w ere upset abou t the price of their subs criptions. The court de te rm ine d th at

the c ust om er s w er e harm ed by both th e paym en ts m ad e fo r the m ag az ine pa ck ag es and the f ru str at ion , inc onve nie nc e, and e xpe nse inv olv ed in canc el lin g th ei r subs cr ipt ion s. T he c ourt r ej ec te d P ro ch now ’ s arg um en t tha t the cu sto m er s ha d si m

ply e xpe ri en ce d buy er ’ s r em or se , and i nst ea d f ound that the cancellations wer e the re sult of DSI’ s m isleading s ales tactics. When custom ers ca lle d to c an ce l, the y

ha d e ith er

be enm et w itha“ save the se ll” te ch nique or w ith an ou tri gh t re fu sa l t o c an cel . The c ourt then determ ined that each custom er who had cancelled had suffere d an injury

in the approxim ate am ountof $20 for having to endureIn c onne c tio n w iththi s is su e and a lso the iss ue inv olv ingthe amou nt o f d isg or g e me nt, 1 Prochnow a

rgues that the district cour t abused its discretion in usingDef endant’ s Ex hibit No. 352 to determine ve rification and canc ellation rate s, which in turn wer e used to a pproxi mate the numbe r o f i nju

re d c us tom e rs . We dis a g re e that th is d oc ume nt, wh ic h Pr oc hn owhim se lf put into evidenc e, wa s not admissibl e for the purpose the court used it. It is a rec ord that wa s compiled fo r a nd ke pt i n th e re gula

r c ours e of

Pr oc hn ow ’s bu sin e ss. Se e F e d. R. E vid . 8 03 (6 ). De sp ite Pr oc hn ow ’s ins ist e nc e that th e a uth or of the do c ume nt i s unk

no wn and his dr amatic re fe re nc e s to “the my sterious Cheryl” havingprepa red it, the a

uthor is identified on one of the pag es of that same e x hibit as Cheryl Brown, the direc tor of DSI ’s ver ification depa rtment. 11 in te rrupt io ns , andin so m e cas es , ext ra ex pe ns es to can cel th ei r su bs cri pt io ns . T he c ourt no te d th at

the $20 a m ount

“ ac tua lly und er -c om

pe nsate [d ] the pub lic inj ur y . ” T he c ourt di d no t i nc lud e in the dam ag e ca lc ulatio ns any a m ount f or tho se w ho h ad

ini tia lly pur ch as ed

am ag az ine pa ck ag e but

ne ve r ha d th at

pur ch as e verified by

DS I. T he num

ber of custom ers who were injure d was c alculated based on data obtain ed from

DS I itself. W e w ill not s et out the court’ s com plicated 1 cal cu la ti on s i n d et ai l, b ecau se th e p art ie s ar e fam il ia r wit h t he m . Suffice it to say

that at several points in its calculations the dist rict court m ad e as su m

pt io ns m or e fav or ab le to Pro ch no w th an th e ev id en ce re qu ire d, an d we ar e not c onvi nc ed

the c our t c le ar ly e rr ed in any of it s c al cu la tio ns. U nde r 15 U . S . C . § 4 5 ( m)( 1 ) ( C ) p e n a l t i e s ar e t o b e c a l c u l a t e db a s e do nth e nu mb e r o f d ays (n ot transa ct ion s) in w hic h avio la tio n oc curs , and § 45( m )( 1) (A ) al low s ac ivi l penalty of up to $10 ,000 per violation (day of violation ). T he district court’ s final ci vil pe na lty

num be r, a s it poi nte d ou t, tr an slate s to onl y $7, 472 pe r day

of12

vio latio n—c onsi de ra

bly le ss than th e m ax im

um that the statut e al low s. P ro ch now atta ck s so m e of

the de ta ils of

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c al cu la tio ns, but w e w ill not

f au lt th e co ur t fo r ha vi ng qu an ti fie d i ts an al y si s fa r m or e th an itwas re qu ire d t o d o. T he c ourt c oul d have om itt ed m uc h of the c al cu la tio n f

ro m it s ana ly sis and reac hed the sam e, or even a higher, civil penalty assessm ent based on m ore ge ne ral est im at io ns an d app ro xi m at io ns . C. As f or Prochnow’ s attack on the am ountof the disgorgem ent that was or de re d, w e re vie wthat f ind ing onl y

f or c le ar e rr or . S E C v . Bi lz er ian, 29 F . 3d 689, 697 ( D . C. Ci r. 199 4) . W e state d inS E C v . Ca lvo , 378 F . 3d 1 211, 121 7 ( 11th Cir. 2004 ), that if a pre cise calc ulation of illegally obtained profits is not feasible, a re as ona ble appr oxi m at ionw ill do. I d. a t 12 17 ( “ T he S E C i s e nti tle d to d i s g o rg emen tup o np ro du ci n g a r ea s o n ab l e ap p ro x i m at i o no f ad ef en d an t ’s ill -g ott enga ins . . . . E xa ct itu de is not ar equir em en t. ”) . T o th e ex te nt P ro ch now ar gue s th at

dis gor ge m en t w as ina

ppr opr ia te be ca

use of his goo d f

ai th e ff orts t o co m ply w iththe c onse nt d ec re e, his arg um en t i s unpe rs ua siv e. A s w e expla ine d in FT C v. G em

Merc handisi ng Corp., 87 F.3d 466, 468–7 0 (11th Cir. 1996), dis gor ge m en t i s no t a

pun ish m en t, it

is a m ec hanis m

to ri d th e of

fe nde r of il lgo tt en ga in s.13

Again, we will not repeat the deta ils of the calculations th e district court use d. W e thi nk i t si gni fi cant tha t i n f ind ing P ro ch nowsho uld

dis gor ge atot al of $1,685,000 in profits, the court did not cons ider the $25 m illion he rec eived when he sold th e com

pany in 200 0. O ur reviewconvinces us th at there w as no clear er ro r in the c ourt’ s c al cu la tio ns; the y r es ult ed in a re as ona

ble appr oxi m at ionof Pro ch no w’ s i ll -g ot te n g ai ns . T ur nin g no wto Pr oc hnow ’ s m or e ge ne ra l arg um en ts o n th e dis gor ge m en t iss ue , w e re

j ec t onthe ba sis of

F T C v . S ec ur ity

Rare Co in & Bu lli on C or p. , 931 F. 2d 1 312, 131 4–15 ( 8thCi r. 199 1) , his statut e of li m itatio ns arg um en t. W e al so rej ect Pr ochnow’ s argum ent that instead of ordering dis gorgem ent the district co urt sh oul d have r equir ed him to re im bur se e ac h c ust om er

f or the spe ci fi c inj ur ie s su ff

er ed . S ee G em

Me rc h. Co rp . , 87 F . 3d at 47 0 ( “ [B ] ec au se it is not al w ay s po ssi ble to dis tr ibu te the m one y to the vic tim s of

de fe ndant’ s wro ngdo ing , a co urt m ay

or de r the f

unds pa id t o th e U nit ed

S ta te s T re as ur

y . ”) . T ha t arg um en t is not s uppo rted by

the decision he cites for it, se e id. at 468– 70, and as the district co urt po int ed

out , giv enthe state of

the bus ine ss r ec or ds tha t hi s or ganiz at ion s k e p t , th e r e wa s n o wa y t o c a l c u l a t e th e p r e c i s e a mo u n to f i n ju ry o nac u s t o mer - b ycu st om er b as is .14 D. Fi na lly , w e re vie wde nov o whe the r the tot al of c ivi l f ine s and d isg or ge m en t or de re d by

the dis tr ic t c ourt vi olate the E igh t A m en dm en t. U nit ed S ta te s v. Ba j ak aj ian, 524 U . S. 321 , 336 –37, 118 S . Ct . 202 8, 203 7–38 ( 1998 ). T o th e ex te nt tha t P ro ch now ’ s arg um en t i s ba se d onac om pari son of

the a m ount

of penalty and disgo rgem ent that he was f orced to pay

with what others wer e ordere d to p ay , w e re

j ec t i t f or tw o r ea sons . O ne is that the c om parator s w er e not

sim ilarl y sit ua te d w ithP ro ch nowbe ca use the y se ttl ed and h e did

not . T he oth er

r ea son is that any dis pari ty be tw ee n hi m

and those c om

parator s is not

gr oss e noug h to vio late the E igh th A m en dm en t, any w ay . T o th e ex te nt that P ro ch nowc ont en ds that ordering dis gorgem ent and im posin g a civil penalty

for the sam e m iscondu ct violates the Eighth Am endm ent because it constitut es doubl e paym ent, w e re j ect that pr opos iti on a s un supp orte d by any auth or ity . I f anof

fe nde r lik e Pr oc hnow could avoi d a civil penalty by point ing to the fac t that he was going to be required to d isg or ge his pr of

its , the de te rr en t e ff

ec t of the c ivi l pe na lty

w oul d be ev isc er at ed . O ff

en de rs c oul d c ont inu e to r e- of fe nd s af e in the kno w le dge that the m ost the y w oul d e ve r los e w oul d be the a m ount of the ir im pr ope r ga ins . S ee a lso Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412, 425, 107 S. Ct. 1831 , 1839 (1987).15 III . AFFIRMED.