See Doc. 129, 5. Furthermore, on remand the district court in Ruff concluded that the forfeited funds went to a separate and distinct agency from the Iowa DNE to whom restitution was awarded, thereby negating any suggestion of a double recovery. United States v. Ruff , 2006 WL 274433 *3 (N.D.IA. Feb. 2, 2006), aff'd , 472 F.3d 1044 (8th Cir.2007). Therefore, Ruff is not only distinguishable from the case at bar, but actually is in concert with the Fifth and Seventh Circuits' approach stating that if the beneficiaries of the forfeiture and restitution awards are distinct government agencies, there is no double recovery.

420 F.3d at 776. However, on remand, the district court found that the Iowa Division of Narcotics Enforcement received funds from the forfeiture and that, as the forfeited funds went to separate distinct agencies, there was no danger of double recovery United States v. Ruff, No. 03-CR-1027-LRR, 2006 WL 274433, at *3 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 2, 2006), aff'd, 472 F.3d 1044 (8th Cir. 2007). Defendant fails to recognize that he previously briefed the issue of double recovery for purposes of sentencing and unsuccessfully argued it at sentencing.