[the procedural requirements of section 3664] is harmless error absent actual prejudice to the defendant.” United States v. Cienfuegos, 462 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir.2006). That principle follows because “the procedural requirements of section 3664 were designed to protect victims, not defendants.” Id. Specifically, “ ‘the purpose behind the statutory ninety-day limit on the determination of victims’ losses is not to protect defendants from drawn-out sentencing proceedings or to establish finality; rather, it is to protect crime victims from the willful dissipation of defendants’ assets.’” Id. (alteration omitted) (quoting United States v. Zakhary, 357 F.3d 186, 191 (2d Cir.2004)). Here, Defendants received oral notice at sentencing that they would be ordered to pay restitution. See id. (<HOLDING>). Defendants have made no showing of prejudice
holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that there was no actual prejudice where the defendant has the functional equivalent of the notice required holding that there is no prejudice where the racial reference was for purposes of identification holding that an ea prepared by an agency in that case was not the functional equivalent of an eis holding suppression not required where the government mailed the required notice 34 days after the 90day statutory period because defendant had access to the recorded calls and transcripts and failed to demonstrate actual prejudice