Opinion ID: 4537255
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutionality of the Restitution Regime

Text: Goodin also challenges the constitutionality of court-ordered restitution, arguing that because the judge alone determines the amount of the victim’s loss, the federal restitution regime violates his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. But this Court has repeatedly rejected this argument. E.g., United States v. Sawyer, 825 F.3d 287, 297 (6th Cir. 2016); United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768, 780–83 (6th Cir. 2015). Goodin admits this fact and says that he only raises this argument to preserve it for review by the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, at the panel stage of this case, we must reject Goodin’s constitutional challenge to the district court’s restitution order. See Salmi v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 774 F.2d 685, 689 (6th Cir. 1985) (“A panel of this Court cannot overrule the decision of another panel. The prior decision remains controlling authority unless an inconsistent decision of the United States Supreme Court requires modification of the decision or this Court sitting en banc overrules the prior decision.”).