Not Present an Apprendi Problem. CNA, Pomeroy’s insurer, reached a settlement with Bearden, prior to sentencing, which released Bearden from all further liability to CNA upon his payment of $47,000 to CNA. Based on this release, Bearden now argues that the district court erred in ordering him to pay further restitution to CNA. We review the propriety of ordering restitution de novo and the amount of restitution ordered for abuse of discretion. United States v. Vandeberg, 201 F.3d 805, 812 (6th Cir.2000). Bearden’s argument is not exactly that the district court’s restitution was unlawful, but rather that the release executed by CNA precluded the district court from ordering criminal restitution. We have not previously decided whether a settlement or release executed b (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846, 854
holding that plaintiffs were entitled to vacate final order of dismissal as void when they did not receive the motion for dismissal or notice of the hearing on the order until after the dismissal was entered 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 existence of a prior bankruptcy settlement does not preclude a subsequent criminal restitution order holding that because the state was not a party to a settlement agreement a civil release of claims does not and cannot specifically preclude courtordered restitution in a criminal case holding that the dismissal of a civil action in state court does not preclude a restitution order on the same claim