UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-4866 TREVOR PLACIDO BENJAMIN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR-96-217-DKC) Submitted: June 24, 1997 Decided: July 14, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL James K. Bredar, Federal Public Defender, Steven F. Reich, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Lauren E. Case, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Jan Paul Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION
PER CURIAM: Trevor P. Benjamin was sentenced to 248 months' imprisonment pursuant to a plea agreement and ordered to pay restitution totaling $90,000 following his pleas to six counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (1994) and one count of using a firearmin violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994). The court waived imposition of any fine. Neither the plea agreement nor the Government made any recommendation as to restitution. Benjamin appeals his sentence, asserting solely that the district court erred in failing to make specific factual findings to support its restitution order. B ecause the court failed to make adequate factual findings to support its restitution order, we vacate only the restitution portion of the court's order and remand that portion of the order to the district court for that court to make the appropriate findings and to impose restitution accordingly. Additionally, we offer some guidelines on fashioning appropriate orders under the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (VWPA), 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2) (West Supp. 1997).
This Court reviews restitution orders under the VWPA for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Blake , 81 F.3d 498, 505 (4th Cir. 1996). Sentencing courts must make explicit findings of fact on each of the factors enumerated in the VWPA. See United States v. Molen , 9 F.3d 1084, 1086 (4th Cir. 1993); United States v. Bruchey , 810 F.2d 456, 458 (4th Cir. 1987) (interpreting pred ecessor to § 3664). The court's findings must connect the amount and type of restitution ordered to the financial resources, financial needs, and earning ability of the defendant. See Molen , 9 F.3d at 1086; Bruchey , 810 F.2d at458. Further, a determination that compliance with the order of restitution will not cause undue hardship to the defendant or his dependents must be made. See Molen , 9 F.3d at 1086; Bruchey , 810 F.2d at 459. A district court may satisfy this requirement by announcing its findings on the record or adopting adequate proposed findings con-
2tained within a presentence report. See Molen , 9 F.3d at 1086; United States v. Bailey , 975 F.2d 1028, 1032 (4th Cir. 1992).
Because we find that the district court's restitution order in this case did not comply with the VWPA, we conclude that the court's entry of the restitution portion of the order was an abuse of discretion. See18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2) (West Supp. 1997). The district court fixed the amount of restitution and took into account the victims' losses. The court, however, failed to make explicit findings regarding Benjamin's financial resources and his future earning ability. See Molen , 9 F.3d at 1086; Bruchey , 810 F.2d at 458. Further, we find that the court's statements that Benjamin would have the opportunityto earn money in prison and that he was an educated man are not sufficient to comply with the VWPA. See United States v. Mitchell , 893 F.2d 935, 936 n.1 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that district court's reliance on fact that defendant had high school education insufficient to justify restitution order). Thus, because the court below neither articulated onthe record specific factual findings with regard to the factors enumerated in § 3664(f)(2), and b ecause the presentence report did not contain adequate findings as to the enumerated factors, we vacate the restitution order and remand to the district court for that court to make appropriate findings regarding the order of restitution. See Molen , 9 F.3d at 1086.As an assistance on remand, we note the presentence report contained no findings or recommendations about Benjamin's future earning ability and therefore cannot be adopted to support a restitution award. See United States v. Plumley , 993 F.2d 1040, 1143 (4th Cir. 1992). Also, we point out that the defendant bears the burden of establishing his inability to pay restitution. See18 U.S.C.A. § 3664(e); see also United States v. Castner , 50 F.3d 1267, 1277 n.9(4th Cir. 1995) (stating that defendant must show inability to pay restitution by preponderance of evidence). Further, we note that restitution is only appropriate in an amount that the defendant can realistically be expected to pay. See Bailey , 975 F.2d at 1032. For these reasons, we vacate the restitution portion of the court's order and remand that aspect of the order to the district court to make the appropriate findings and to assess restitution accordingly. We decline to comment on the amount of any restitution ordered. We dis-
3pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4