has been convicted of an offense under the Trafficking Act. Id. § 1593(a). But Defendants were not convicted of an offense under the Traffi restitution imposed by the district court exceeded the victims’ actual losses. See United States v. James, 564 F.3d 1237, 1243 (10th Cir.2009) (“[A] district court may not order restitution in an amount that exceeds the actual loss caused by the defendant’s conduct, which would amount to an illegal sentence constituting plain error.”); United States v. Austin, 479 F.3d 363, 373 (5th Cir.2007) (“When a defendant is ordered to pay restitution in an amount greater than the loss caused, the error affects substantial rights as well as the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceeding.”); United States v. Alburay, 415 F.3d 782, 789 (7th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Diaz, 245 F.3d 294,
holding that no plain error occurred where any hypothetical minor error in calculating total loss would not have affected the ultimate amount of restitution because the court imposed only 30000 of restitution after calculating a total loss of 500000 holding under plain error standard of review that apprendi does not apply to restitution because the statute does not prescribe a maximum amount holding that where the government has not presented evidence at the hearing concerning the appropriate amount of restitution    the imposition of the restitution order constitutes plain error holding that restitution in the amount of 1750000 constituted plain error because the actual loss was only 1725000 holding that the amount of restitution is limited to the victims actual losses 