With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". "for failure to pay a $60,000 fine levied as part of his sentence” would satisfy any continuing collateral consequences requirement. Id. Nevertheless, our statement two years later in Hager, 993 F.2d at 5, that the appellant has not "shown significant, continuing collateral consequences flowing from his conviction,” plainly indicates that more than the mere fact of a conviction is required. 3 . The answer to this question is not clear. The petitioner’s ongoing loss of monthly pension benefits, together with health-care coverage, may satisfy one piece of the continuing collateral consequences requirement, see Osser, 864 F.2d at 1060 (assuming that loss of pension benefits is a continuing collateral consequence), but such a conclusion is not foregone, see Craig, 907 F.2d at 660 (<HOLDING>). In all events, there is a second piece of the

A: holding that the failure to impose a mandatory fine requires that the matter be remanded for imposition of that fine
B: holding that removal from a pension plan is a sunk cost much like a criminal fine
C: holding that court not required to find ability to pay before imposing criminal fine
D: holding that a flat unconditional fine for 50 was a criminal sanction because the contemnor had no subsequent opportunity to reduce or avoid the fine through compliance
B.