least to the extent they contain no definite, set amount. The district court must order restitution “in the full amount of each victim’s losses as determined by the court,” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A) (emphasis added), whatever that full amount may be. Furthermore, a victim is defined as any person “directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of an offense ... including, in the case of an offense that involves as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity, any person directly harmed by the defendant’s criminal conduct in the course of the scheme, conspiracy, or pattern.” Id. § 3663A(a)(2). Because the “full amount” authorized by statute will vary, there isn’t really a “prescribed” maximum. See United States v. Syme, 276 F.3d 131, 159 (3rd Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bearden, 274 F.3d 1031, 1042
holding that apprendi does not apply on collateral review holding that apprendi does not apply where the defendant was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum holding under plain error standard of review that apprendi does not apply to restitution because the statute does not prescribe a maximum amount holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively holding that because apprendi does not apply retroactively neither does blakely