determination, this court has noted that restitution is a “criminal penalty meant to have strong deterrent and rehabilitative effect.” United States v. Twitty, 107 F.3d 1482, 1493 n. 12 (11th Cir.1997) (construing purpose of restitution under the VWPA) (quoting United States v. Hairston, 888 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir.1989)). Additionally, in United States v. Dubose, the Ninth Circuit decided in the context of an Eighth Amendment challenge that restitution under the MVRA is punishment because it has “not only remedial, but also deterrent, rehabilitative, and retributive purposes.” Dubose, 146 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir.1998) (citing Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 610, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993)). See also United States v. Rico Indus., Inc., 854 F.2d 710, 714 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Sleight, 808 F.2d 1012, 1020
holding that restitution is a criminal penalty that negates the imposition of prejudgment interest holding that prejudgment interest may include compound interest 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 restitution under the vwpa was more akin to compensation for actual loss than a criminal penalty that may not bear interest holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not