by more than Feldman was owed would result in reducing some victims’ restitution below what the court had determined to be their loss. This would be an abuse of discretion. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (“the court shall order ... that the defendant make restitution to the victim of the offense” and “[t]he order of restitution shall require that such defendant ... pay an amount equal to ... the value of the property on the date of the ... loss (emphases added)); 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A) (“In each order of restitution, the court shall order restitution to each victim in the full amount of each victim’s losses as determined by the court and without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant” (emphasis added)); see, e.g., United States v. Guy, 335 Fed.Appx. 898, 900 (11th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). The Amended Judgment entered by the district
holding that the court erred in failing to inform the defendant that it could impose restitution but that the error did not affect the defendants substantial rights because the court informed the defendant that it could impose a maximum fine of an amount higher than the restitution amount imposed holding that the victim and witness protection act limits the amount of restitution to the loss caused by the specific conduct forming the basis of the offense of conviction holding that ordering a defendant to pay an amount of restitution less than the calculated amount of loss was error even where the victim was negligent citing united states v jones 289 f3d 1260 1265 11th cir2002 holding that a district court cannot order restitution in amounts that will result in the payment to the victim of an amount greater than the victims loss holding that when trial court orders restitution at sentencing pursuant to statute the defendant is entitled to notice of the amount claimed and the opportunity to dispute the amount