Challenge to the Restitution Order Ross contends the order requiring him to pay $2.7 million in restitution violates Apprendi because the district court ordered restitution to victims beyond those affected by the specific wire transactions submitted to the jury to prove wire fraud. Apprendi requires that “[ojther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 530 r the third component applies to restitution, that is, whether restitution is a penalty that can be “increased ... beyond the prescribed statutory maximum.” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. The statutes authorizing restitution have no “prescribed” maximum, a 6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Behrman, 235 F.3d at 1054 (comparing § 3663A
holding that restitution in the full amount of each victims losses does not exceed the statutory maximum holding that restitution is proper for victims losses that are directly caused by appellants conduct for which he was convicted holding that the amount of restitution is limited to the victims actual losses  holding under plain error standard of review that apprendi does not apply to restitution because the statute does not prescribe a maximum amount holding that a defendant could not assert an error under apprendi v new jersey because his sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum