to U.S.S.G. § 5E1.1, the restitution guideline found in § 5E is entirely independent of the § 3E1.1 reduction and § 5K2.0 departure provisions. Cf. Crook, 9 F.3d at 1426 (examining structure of Guidelines to determine whether extraordinary forfeiture is a valid ground for downward departure). 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(7) is not in conflict with the proposition that restitution is not a legitimate ground for departure from the guideline sentencing range. Section 3553(a)(7) instructs that “[t]he court, in determining the particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider—... (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.” (emphasis added). Section 3553(a)(7) applies to the sentencing determination once the sentencing range has been established. See Bolden, 889 F.2d at 1341 (<HOLDING>). Departure from the applicable sentencing
holding that although restitution is not valid ground for a  5k20 departure 18 usc  3553a7 permits the sentencing court to consider restitution in deciding what sentence within the guidelines to impose holding that restitution is not a proper ground for departing downward from the guidelines range holding trial court without jurisdiction to impose additional restitution because more than 60 days had passed between the sentencing hearing and the second restitution hearing holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not 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