things, that the court could not "provide restitution to nature." Nevertheless, even if plain error review governed our analysis of this issue, we would find that the court committed plain error by issuing restitution without authority to do so. See United States v. Poitra, 648 F.3d 884, 887 (8th Cir.2011) ("To obtain relief under a plain-error standard of review, the party seeking relief must show that there was an error, the error is clear or obvious under current law, the error affected the party's substantial rights, and the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (citing United States v. Curry, 627 F.3d 312, 314-15 (8th Cir.2010) (per curiam))); United States v. Clark, 274 F.3d 1325, 1328-29 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Barajas-Nunez, 91 F.3d 826,
holding that the requirements of explanation and consideration of alternatives do not impose additional procedural requirements upon an agency in contravention of vermont yankee holding that defendant could not show district courts alleged error in considering  3553a2a when imposing a revocation sentence was clear or obvious under plain error review holding that the district court committed plain error in relying solely on the factual description in the presentence report holding that government waived right to challenge alleged error of district court in failing to impose statutory minimum sentence under  841b1b by failing to object to sentence announced by district court holding that a district court committed plain error by imposing a sentence in contravention of statutory requirements