property of a victim of the offense— (A) return the property to the owner of the property or someone designated by the owner; or (B) if return of the property under subparagraph (A) is impossible, impractical, or inadequate, pay an amount equal to the greater of— (i) the value of the property on the date of the damage, loss, or destruction, or (ii) the value of the property on the date of sentencing, less the value (as of the date the property is returned) of any part of the property that is returned[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3663(b). An order of restitution under the VWPA must conform to the specific type and amount of award that is authorized by the plain language of the statute. United States v. Sharp, 927 F.2d 170, 174 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 139, 116 L.Ed.2d 106 (1991) (<HOLDING>). The plain language of the statute is to be
holding that the trial court lacked authority under ors 137103 to impose restitution to pay the victims relatives for lost wages holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not holding that restitution for lost income is not authorized for offenses resulting in damage to loss of or destruction of property the fact that the goals of the vwpa may be thwarted by denying lost income restitution does not authorize us to ignore the plain language of the statute holding that downward departure based on defendants restitution was improper because restitution is taken into consideration in assessing whether acceptance of responsibility adjustment should apply and district court abused its discretion in finding defendants restitution was extraordinary holding that restitution for lost income in property cases was improper under the plain language of the statute because restitution for lost income is authorized only for victims of bodily injury