Opinion ID: 2737438
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Fact Finding for Restitution

Text: Appellant argues that the District Court committed plain error in failing to submit to a jury for determination beyond a reasonable doubt the amount of restitution owed to the victim. Because Appellant did not object to this claim in the District Court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Vazquez, 271 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2001) (en banc). From the outset, we note that the same line of argument advanced by Appellant here was rejected by this Court in United States v. Leahy, 438 F.3d 328, 337-38 (3d Cir. 10 2006) (en banc). There, we held that restitution “is a criminal penalty and that the Sixth Amendment right to jury determinations of certain facts as articulated in Booker does not apply to forfeiture or to orders of restitution imposed as part of a criminal sentence under those two statutes.” Id. at 338-39. This precedent is fatal to Appellant’s claim, as the plain error standard requires proof that the error is clear under current law. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993) (holding that a “court of appeals cannot correct an error pursuant to Rule 52(b) unless the error is clear under current law”). Here, the law is at best contrary to Appellant’s position. Therefore, the District Court did not commit plain error in determining the restitution owed to the victim.