before the indictment was returned, but which did not end until 1984 — a time within the five-year period of limitations. Under the Probation Act, the only limits on restitution are that repayment must relate (i) to the particular offense of which the defendant was convicted and (ii) to the actual losses suffered by the victim. See United States v. Boswell, 565 F.2d 1338, 1343 (5th Cir.) (“As a condition of probation a district court undoubtedly has the authority to require that a defendant make restitution to injured parties for the actual loss or damage caused by the offense for which he stands convicted....”) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 819, 99 S.Ct. 81, 58 L.Ed.2d 110 (1978); see also United States v. Stuver, 845 F.2d 73, 76 (4th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Johnson, 700 F.2d 699, 701
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 the sixth amendment does not require factfinding by a jury for purposes of calculating the amount of restitution holding prejudgment interest is to be determined on the entire amount of compensatory damages and then reduced by the amount of interest which would have accrued at present value on the settlement amount determined before trial holding that precise amount of loss for restitution purposes must be legally determined in the underlying criminal proceeding holding that a district court cannot order restitution in amounts that will result in the payment to the victim of an amount greater than the victims loss