In particular, the district court adopted the following calculation, which had been proposed by the government: (average price of each commercial sex act) x(average estimated number of commercial sex acts performed) = restitution. The district court found that the average price for each sex act was $170. It then multiplied $170 by the estimated number of sex acts each victim performed and held “that the following restitution amounts are warranted: (1) for Y.H., $8,500 ($170 x 50 acts); (2) for J.C., $11,050 ($170 x 65 acts).” Pursuant to its order filed April 30, 2008, the district court held further that the $4,226 seized at the time of Defendants’ arrests should be distributed equally to J.C. and Y.H. and credited toward the full amount of restitution. The district court t Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). We therefore vacate the restitution order and
holding that restitution in the amount of 1750000 constituted plain error because the actual loss was only 1725000 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 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 that the sixth amendment does not require factfinding by a jury for purposes of calculating the amount of restitution holding that the district courts error in calculating the amount of drugs at issue was harmless because the error had no impact on the defendants sentence