Does a federal judge have authority to order restitution for a defendant who committed a sexual assault on a minor child under the Federal Probation Act?

Gill argues that the court made the order pursuant to the Victim and Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 3663, 3664 (VWPA), which he claims was not in effect at the time of his crime. In its judgment, the district court did not state whether the restitution order was entered pursuant to the VWPA or the Federal Probation Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3651. The government contends that, under United States v. Barany, 884 F.2d 1255, 1259 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 755 (1990), this ambiguity forces this court to examine the legality of the restitution order under both statutes. The record indicates, however, that the district court's order was pursuant to the VWPA. At the sentencing hearings, the district court heard arguments from the government that the VWPA authorized restitution even where the parties had already settled in related civil proceedings. In addition, in a separate order fixing restitution for two of the airlines, the district court cited the VWPA as the governing statute.