United States v. Olusola Elliott, 600 F. App'x 225

Elliott was convicted of health care fraud and conspiracy; district court sentenced him to 84 months and ordered restitution of $561,934.12.
The jury convicted on seven counts, but did not adjudicate restitution or Medicare loss; restitution was set at sentencing.
The district court found intended loss of $1,713,716 (the billed amount) to apply a 16-level sentencing enhancement.
Elliott argues Sixth Amendment right to jury verdict on restitution amount and that intended loss should reflect Medicare’s actual payment, not billed amount.
The panel cites Apprendi/Southern Union/Alleyne but follows Rosbottom and Read, holding Apprendi does not require jury findings for restitution in this circuit.
Court affirms the district court’s loss determination and the resulting sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does restitution amount require a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt?	Elliott (Elliott) argues jury must find restitution amount beyond a reasonable doubt.	Elliott contends Sixth Amendment applies; district court’s finding based on preponderance is improper.	No; Sixth Amendment does not require jury finding for restitution per circuit precedent.
Was the intended loss properly determined for the sentencing enhancement?	Elliott claims the intended loss should reflect Medicare’s actual reimbursement, not billed amounts.	Gov’t contends prima facie evidence from billed amounts supports intended loss; other evidence may rebut.	district court’s intended-loss finding was not clearly erroneous; reliance on billed amounts upheld.
Does Apprendi apply to restitution in this circuit after Rosbottom/Read?	Elliott relies on Apprendi to argue restitution must be jury-determined.	Rosbottom and Read control; Apprendi does not apply to restitution.	Restitution need not be jury-determined; Apprendi does not apply here.

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be tried to a jury)
Southern Union Co. v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2344 (2012) (applies to fines and informs jury requirement to determine maximum penalties)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (extends Apprendi to mandatory-minimum enhancements)
United States v. Rosbottom, 763 F.3d 408 (2014) (Apprendi does not apply to restitution; panel recognizes potential tension with Supreme Court dicta)
United States v. Read, 710 F.3d 219 (2012) (Apprendi does not apply to restitution in this circuit)
United States v. Valdez, 726 F.3d 684 (2013) (district court erred by ignoring evidence rebutting prima facie intended loss from billed amount)
United States v. Usman, 460 F. App’x. 414 (2012) (no witness testified to defendant’s knowledge; reaffirmed use of billed amount as intended loss under certain evidence)
United States v. Isiwele, 635 F.3d 196 (2011) (loss calculation under Guidelines; prima facie evidence standard for intended loss)