Without further elaboration, defendant claims that the proof was insufficient based on our holding in May. In May, a restitution award for the victim's lost profits was stricken on the ground that it was not proved with reasonable certainty. Unlike lost profits, however, we believe that extradition costs are ordinarily easy to ascertain. At the sentencing hearing, defendant made no argument that the award did not reflect the actual costs incurred. The trial court has discretion to determine the proper amount of restitution.
Defendant provides no evidence suggesting that the award is unreasonable.
In the absence of specific claims of error, we conclude that the sentencing judge did not abuse his discretion. Because we find that the award comports with all of the statutory requirements concerning restitution awards, this argument fails.