the power in many situations, including those involving enforcement of a trust, to fashion legal remedies “which would otherwise be beyond the scope of its authority.” See Mertens, 508 U.S. at 256, 113 S.Ct. 2063 (quoting 1 J. Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence § 181, p. 257 (5th ed.1941)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, the phrase was intended to limit the scope of such relief to the forms of equitable relief “typically available in equity (such as injunction, mandamus, and restitution, but not compensatory damages).” Id. (emphasis in original). Even restitution is not always available under § 502(a)(3). In Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. v. Knudson, the Court drew a distinction between legal restitution and equitable restitution. See Greatr-West, 122 S.Ct. at 715, 719 (<HOLDING>). The Court reasoned, “for restitution to lie
holding apprendi inapplicable to restitution orders because restitution for harm done is a classic civil remedy holding that downward departure based on defendants restitution was improper because restitution is taken into consideration in assessing whether acceptance of responsibility adjustment should apply and district court abused its discretion in finding defendants restitution was extraordinary holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not holding no restitution hearing is mandated when defendant did not object to order of restitution or request a hearing 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