Opinion ID: 202455
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Goodine

Text: The district court concluded that even if Harris remains good law, § 841 is an offense-defining statutory provision, all elements of which must be tried before the jury. Malouf, 377 F. Supp. 2d at 328. This finding is directly contrary to -- and foreclosed by -- Goodine in which we held that drug quantity for purposes of § 841 is a sentencing factor that may be determined by a preponderance of the evidence. 326 F.3d at 32. Goodine was decided after Apprendi and Harris but before Booker and Blakely. The district court found that it was not bound by Goodine because that opinion was based on Supreme Court precedent which is crumbling. Malouf, 377 F. Supp. 2d at 325. As we have since held in Lizardo, we are bound by Goodine. Lizardo, 445 F.3d at 90. We tarry here to reaffirm that there are only two exceptions to the principle that newly constituted panels are bound by decisions of prior panels in the same circuit. As to the first, [a]n existing panel decision may be undermined by controlling authority, subsequently announced, such as an opinion of the -11- Supreme Court, an en banc opinion of the circuit court, or a statutory overruling. United States v. Guzmán, 419 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). With regard to the second exception which operates in instances that fairly may be described as hen's-teeth rare, authority that postdates the original decision, although not directly controlling, may nevertheless offer a compelling reason for believing that the former panel, in light of new developments, would change its collective mind. Id. Neither exception applies in this case. As we discussed in the previous section, Harris remains good law after Blakely and Booker, and there is no other reason for us to contravene our own precedent. Goodine is binding on this circuit and the district court erred when it concluded otherwise.