asserts that the district court had jurisdiction to modify the order and asks this court to stay the collection of restitution. Initially, we deny Vanhorn’s motion to stay the collection of restitution. His assertion, however, that the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate his motion to modify the restitution order notwithstanding the pendency of his appeal and the seven-day time limit of Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(c) has merit. The district court’s judgment of conviction and sentence in this case, dated June 22, 2001, does not set a schedule of payments for restitution while Vanhorn is incarcerated, and this is contrary to current law. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(l)(B)(2) (requiring the court to specify the schedule for payment); United States v. McGlothlin, 249 F.3d 783, 784-85 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Seeking a specified payment schedule, Vanhorn
holding the district court must fashion a payment schedule designating a specific percentage of the prisoners monthly earnings to go toward his restitution obligation holding the government was within its rights to garnish wages where there was a minimum monthly payment schedule and restitution was due in full immediately holding that a lumpsum restitution order is valid where it does not specify the source of the restitution or direct liquidation of specific assets and the defendant may have other sources of payment holding that  1322c2 refers to the final payment under the original mortgage schedule and not the most recent payment holding that where defendant objected in the district court only to the loss calculation and not specifically to the calculation of restitution the issue of restitution was not properly presented  to the district court