Act; they were convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. The restitution provisions of the Trafficking Act simply do not apply. Instead, the restitution provisions of § 3663 apply. And the calculation methods under § 3663 do not include a defendant’s ill-gotten gains. For its part, the government does not dispute any of the foregoing analysis. Instead, it argues on appeal that, “[ajlthough Section 1593 does not mandate restitution for violations of 18 U.S.C. [§ ]241, it was reasonable in this case, where defendants engaged in the same sort of behavior, to look to Section 1593 for guidance.” We disagree. Congress specified criminal penalties for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 241, which include restitution “limited to the victim’s actual losses.” Bussell, 504 F.3d at 964. th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). We therefore cannot tell whether the amount
holding that a district courts failure to make the necessary findings related to a restitution order constitutes plain error 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 equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not 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 holding no restitution hearing is mandated when defendant did not object to order of restitution or request a hearing