review the grant of restitution for abuse of discretion. United States v. Pearson, 570 F.3d 480, 486 (2d Cir. 2009). Fac tual findings underlying the restitution order are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Gushlak, 728 F.3d 184, 190-91 (2d Cir. 2013). Sentencing issues not raised in the district court are “deemed waived on appeal in the absence of plain errors.” United States v. Margiotti, 85 F.3d 100, 104 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Liebman, 40 F.3d 544, 551 (2d Cir. 1994)). Under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (the “MVRA”), restitution is mandatory for wire fraud and certain other crimes where an identifiable victim has suffered a pecuniary loss. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(l), (c)(l)(A)(ii), (c)(1)(B); United States v. Ekanem, 383 F.3d 40, 43 (2d Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). “[Restitution is authorized only ‘for losses
holding public entities have no affirmative duty to warn of the release of an inmate with a violent history unless the inmate makes a specific threat against a specific identifiable victim or group of victims holding that the death of a victim may not be considered an aggravating factor in a homicide sentencing holding that the victim impact and victim vulnerability aggravators were not overbroad and explaining that though the concepts of victim impact and victim vulnerability may well be relevant in every case evidence of victim vulnerability and victim impact in a particular case is inherently individualized holding that the government may be an identifiable victim holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction