With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. 490 U.S. at 449, 109 S.Ct. 1892. Under Halper, “proportionality is the key.” Barnette, 10 F.3d at 1560. The compensation the government requested in Hal-per was vastly disproportionate to its losses: Although the government had suffered only $16,000 in actual damages, it requested an additional fine of $130,000, a ratio of 8 to 1. See Barnette, 10 F.3d at 1560 (discussing Halper, 490 U.S. at 452, 109 S.Ct. 1892). In the present case, plaintiff claims $5 million in actual damages to the government and seeks $15 million in compensation, plus between $5,000 and $10,000 per false claim, far less than the ratio in Halper. Raising the stakes from double to treble damages does not render the relationship between loss and recovery irrational in the present case. See Brekke, 97 F.3d at 1048 (<HOLDING>) (“We do not see how the treble damages

A: holding that equitable relief under  502a3 does not include compensatory and punitive damages
B: holding that a postamendment fca case was compensatory and not punitive
C: holding in a postamendment case that the preamendment guideline did not contain a targeting requirement
D: holding that punitive damages do not need to be proportional to compensatory damages
B.