Whether Apprendi applies to a mandatory criminal restitution order, and whether the Seventh Amendment requires a restitution order to comply with traditional equity practice and to be bound by the jury's verdict

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Dissenting from the denial of certiorari in Hester v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 509 (2019), Justices Gorsuch and Sotomayor urged this Court to review whether the right to a jury trial under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, see Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (also requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt), and the Seventh Amendment apply to restitution imposed as part of a criminal sentence. Since Hester, this Court has issued two opinions enhancing the case for review. In United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), this Court rejected an argument similar to the argument that the government has offered for exempting restitution from Apprendi. And, Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 140 S. Ct. 1936 (2020) provides guidance on the limitations of traditional equitable restitution that undermines the government’s other argument that restitution is exempt from Apprendi as a civil compensatory remedy. The questions presented are: 1. Whether Apprendi applies to a mandatory criminal restitution order, and whether the Seventh Amendment requires a restitution order to comply with traditional equity practice and to be bound by the jury’s verdict. 2. Whether this Court should grant, vacate, and remand for reconsideration in light of Liu, 140 S. Ct. 1936. i STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES * United States v. Christopher Paul George, No. 12CR00065-VAP, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Judgment entered August 9, 2018. * United States v. Christopher Paul George, No. 15-50435, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered February 27, 2018. * United States v. Christopher Paul George, No. 18-50268, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered February 4, 2020, rehearing denied April 13, 2020. i