716 F.2d at 623 n. 5, 625 (court reversed restitution order that was based on figures prepared by postal inspector); Orr, 691 F.2d at 433-34 & n. 3 (neither the defendant’s admissions in presentence interview nor her private agreement for restitution could be used to require restitution greater than the indictment amounts). Our cases have recognized an exception to the rule limiting restitution to amounts set forth in the indictment counts on which the defendant stands convicted. The court will carry out a plea agreement that specifically determines the amount of restitution, provided the defendant freely and voluntarily consents to it, and the agreement has been fully explored in open court. Phillips v. United States, 679 F.2d 192, 194 (9th Cir.1982); see also Black, 767 F.2d at 1343 (<HOLDING>); Gering, 716 F.2d at 623; Orr, 691 F.2d at
recognizing exception holding that the phillips exception is expressly limited to the status of materials  attached to a nondispositive motion emphasis omitted recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception recognizing such an exception recognizing the phillips exception