With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to be aggregated. Id. at 363. The government asserts that because the same Guideline sections are applicable to May’s offenses, the district court properly aggregated the total losses for May’s convictions under §§ 7201-7202. Despite the initial appeal of the government’s argument, the facts of May’s case differ from those we and other circuits have previously decided. Cseplo involved a scheme whereby the defendant skimmed money from a corporation he owned and converted the money to his own uses. 42 F.3d at 361. See also United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317, 1323-24 (11th Cir.2003) (adopting Cseplo in the context of a defendant who willfully underreported corporate income and defrauded the United States government); United States v. Spencer, 178 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, in Cseplo the government was

A: holding that where issues were not considered by the bia remand is appropriate
B: holding it is appropriate to apply a discount to a closely held corporation
C: holding that aggregation is appropriate where defendant skimmed money from the corporation to supplement his legitimately approved salary
D: holding that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate where a plaintiff failed to name each of the persons alleged to have violated the appropriate standard of care
C.