of the collateral caused by market forces. Second, Onua argues that various mortgage payments made by him to the banks in furtherance of the scheme, as well as certain other “credits and offsets,” were not properly deducted from the overall amount of restitution. We hold that Onua forfeited this argument, by failing to object to either the District Court’s calculation of restitution at sentencing or to the Government’s proposed Final Order of Restitution, which adopted the District Court’s calculation. Because the District Court’s calculation of restitution did not constitute plain error, see United States v. Miller, 263 F.3d 1, 4 (2d Cir.2001), we affirm the District Court’s judgment as to the amount of restitution. See also United States v. Coriaty, 300 F.3d 244, 252 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we hold that Onua’s objections
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 that the district court properly considered the moisture content in the calculation of the weight of the marijuana for sentencing purposes 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 a calculation of the amount of loss is a factual finding holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not