With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Circuit has not directly spoken on this issue, at least one Circuit has upheld the imposition of an identical provision. United States v. Terrigno, 838 F.2d 371, 374 (9th Cir.1988). At a minimum, the Ninth Circuit’s decision indicates that reasonable minds could differ as to the legality of the disputed condition, and any error was therefore not “plain.” We therefore affirm the district court’s imposition of the disputed term. K. Amount of Loss Calculation 1. Standard of Review We review the district court’s calculation for clear error, United States v. Guthrie, 144 F.3d 1006, 1011(6th Cir.1998). Finding no clear error, we affirm the district court’s amount of loss determination. 2. The Amount of Loss Calculation Was Not Clearly Erroneous. The district court’s determin th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the district court’s inclusion

A: holding that standard for revocation of probation is preponderance of the evidence
B: holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence
C: holding that the district court determines the amount of loss under the preponderance of the evidence standard
D: holding that the standard of proof for dischargeability actions is the preponderance of the evidence standard
C.