United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 82, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 2340, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004). Under this standard, we must examine the entire proceedings, not just the plea hearing, to assess the effect of the Rule 11 error on the defendant’s decision to plead. Id. at 80-84, 124 S.Ct. at 2338-41. Assuming arguendo that Salvia is not otherwise procedurally barred from challenging the district court’s action in this respect, Salvia cannot demonstrate that the court committed reversible plain error. As the government concedes, the district court’s failure to inform Salvia at the plea hearing of the court’s ability to impose a restitution order violated the requirement of Rule 11 and constituted error that was plain. See United States v. Morris, 286 F.3d 1291, 1293-94 (11th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Salvia, however, cannot demonstrate that this
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 trial court without jurisdiction to impose additional restitution because more than 60 days had passed between the sentencing hearing and the second restitution hearing holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not holding that when trial court orders restitution at sentencing pursuant to statute the defendant is entitled to notice of the amount claimed and the opportunity to dispute the amount holding that the court erred in failing to inform the defendant that it could impose restitution but that the error did not affect the defendants substantial rights because the court informed the defendant that it could impose a maximum fine of an amount higher than the restitution amount imposed