With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 108 S.Ct. 316 (internal quotation marks omitted). Sluder and Saturday readily admit the district court’s jury instructions were in accord with our precedents. Section 1343 requires that one specifically intend “to deprive” the victim of money or property, but one can intend to “deprive” a victim of property within the meaning of the statute without intending to cause pecuniary loss. The common understanding of the verb “to deprive” is to take away something, such as property, from another. See Black’s Law Dictionary 473 (8th ed. 2004) (defining “deprivation” as “[a]n act of taking away”). In accordance with this understanding, we held in United States v. Oren that intent “to defraud” under § 1343 does not require an intent to cause a pecuniary loss to the victim. See 893 F.2d at 1062 (<HOLDING>). “[The defendant’s guilt or innocence of the

A: holding that to satisfy the element of specific intent to defraud needed to convict for mail fraud the government must show that the defendant knowingly made a material misrepresentation or knowingly omitted a material fact for the purpose of inducing the victim of the fraud to part with property or undertake some action that he would not otherwise do absent the misrepresentation or omission
B: holding that fraud claim requires proof that the defendant made a material representation that was false
C: holding that the redemption price was based on the amount bid at foreclosure  and not  what the subsequent purchaser paid  for the property
D: holding that even if the defendant believed that the property was worth what the victim of the fraud paid for it the fact that the seller made a false representation to inflate the purchase price constituted intent to defraud under  1343
D.