the jury to determine the size of the punitive damage award, both parties provided extensive briefing on the applicability of the Seventh Amendment. “We may uphold the district court's decision ... under any ground that the record supports.” United States v. Flower, 29 F.3d 530, 536 n. 9 (10th Cir.1994). See Stewart, 487 U.S. at 25, 108 S.Ct. 2239 (affirming Eleventh Circuit's choice-of-law decision “under somewhat different reasoning”). 8 . We need not permit Jones to choose between a new jury trial or acceptance of the remittitur because, unlike the reduction in O'Gilvie, 821 F.2d at 1440, 1447, this reduction is required by the constitution, not a court’s determination as to whether substantial evidence at trial supported the amount awarded. OXY USA Inc., 101 F.3d at 642-42 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that
holding that the nonmovant failed to raise a fact issue on mitigation by not raising a fact issue as to the amount of damages that could have been avoided had the movantproperly mitigated his damages holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable holding that a reduction in punitive damages to comply with the due process clause is a federal constitutional issue not a fact issue requiring jury consideration holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury holding a court may not award punitive damages