With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". This argument fails for two reasons. First, contrary to the government’s characterization, Romero-Rendon declined to address the appropriate standard of proof; instead, the court held that the unchallenged pre-sentence report constituted clear and convincing evidence of the critical predicate fact. See id. at 1165. Here, however, Berger vigorously challenged the loss calculations before the district court. Second, although the parties disputed the validity of the district court’s loss calculation, making such a calculation necessarily involved the district court’s determination of how much loss was suffered, an issue we have held to be one of fact. See, e.g., United States v. Garro, 517 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir.2008) (citing United States v. Lawrence, 189 F.3d 838, 844 (9th Cir.1999)) (<HOLDING>). Thus, by challenging the loss amount, Berger

A: holding that the district court failed to comply with rule 32c1 because its oral finding regarding the value of loss resulting from monuss offense was stated in general terms and did not explain how it calculated the amount of loss or respond to the defendants specific factual objections to the methods of calculation included in the psr
B: holding that a calculation of the amount of loss is a factual finding
C: holding that where defendant objected in the district court only to the loss calculation and not specifically to the calculation of restitution the issue of restitution was not properly presented  to the district court
D: holding that even if one of the governments calculation methods impermissibly counted funds obtained from the same stolen credit card towards both actual and intended loss any error was harmless because an alternate calculation method which was free of any double counting also resulted in a loss amount of between 120000 and 400000 and thus application of the same enhancement
B.