11 U.S.C. § 362(h). We agree with the Bankruptcy and District Courts that Rashid cannot allege any injury from the lien. He'was incarcerated at the time the lien was in effect and not residing at the property. The Government did not attempt to foreclose on the hen nor did Rashid attempt to mortg unpublished); In re Kochekian, 175 B.R; 883, 885 n. 1 (Bankr.M.D.N.C.1995) (same). Because neither party to these proceedings suggests § 523(a)(13) should apply to this appeal, we need not reach this issue here. 2 . Restitution, however, has both compensatory and punitive aspects. See United States v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87, 91 (3d Cir.1998). We have previously characterized the VWPA as both compensatory and punitive. Compare Government of Virgin Islands v. Davis, 43 F.3d 41, 47 (3d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>) with United States v. Palma, 760 F.2d 475, 479
holding that restitution is a criminal penalty that negates the imposition of prejudgment interest holding that restitution under the vwpa was more akin to compensation for actual loss than a criminal penalty that may not bear interest holding that restitution ordered pursuant to the vwpa was not a separate civil proceeding that required a jury trial but a criminal penalty that was an integral part of the sentencing process holding that restitution for consequential damages such as legal fees expended to investigate a fraudulent insurance claim are unavailable under the vwpa holding that restitution for lost income is not authorized for offenses resulting in damage to loss of or destruction of property the fact that the goals of the vwpa may be thwarted by denying lost income restitution does not authorize us to ignore the plain language of the statute