a restitution award in the amount of the potential earning capacity of a deceased three-year-old child, and held "that the district court exercised its 'abundant discretion’ when it crafted a restitution order to include the lost income.” 505 F.3d at 1124; see also United States v. Oslund, 453 F.3d 1048, 1062-63 (8th Cir.2006) (determining lost future income may be included in a restitution order). Mr. Kalu suggests the district court’s determination that the women would work for the full three years was speculative, but Serawop clearly demonstrates that reasoned forecasting is permissible in the restitution context so long as the award does not exceed the calculation of actual loss. Gallant, 537 F.3d at 1247; see also United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1189 (10th Cir.2007)
recognizing that in calculating restitution courts are permitted to draw inferences from the totality of the circumstances through an exercise of logical and probabilistic reasoning quotations omitted recognizing that police officers can draw inferences from prior experience holding courts are obligated to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor holding that courts are obligated to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor recognizing that totality of circumstances must be considered in determining permissible inferences