on the substantive issue, we can only conclude the issue regarding mortgage satisfactions is most analogous to restitution orders. “[S]ince restitution is essentially ‘[a] civil remedy included with a criminal judgment,’ the facts underlying a restitution order need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt and thus are not governed by Apprendi, Booker and the other recent jurisprudence addressing sentencing issues.” United States v. Rand, 403 F.3d 489, 495 n. 3 (7th Cir.2005); see United States v. Vanhorn, 399 F.3d 884, 886-87 (8th Cir.2005) (concluding defendant’s argument, that Booker applied to district court’s finding in post-judgment proceeding that increased amount of restitution defendant owed, was meritless); United States v. Swanson, 394 F.3d 520, 526 (7th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). These second mortgages were obtained by
holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not holding no restitution hearing is mandated when defendant did not object to order of restitution or request a hearing holding that a district court cannot order restitution in amounts that will result in the payment to the victim of an amount greater than the victims loss holding booker does not affect the manner in which findings of restitution or forfeiture amounts must be made holding resentencing does not affect the date on which the judgment  of conviction became final