With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Thornton, 511 F.3d at 1228; Holt, 510 F.3d at 1012. Some of our sister circuits have encountered a different type of “double counting” problem in cases that involve calculations of loss under § 2Bl.l(b)(l). This version of “double counting” occurs where the same fraudulent check or stolen credit card is erroneously counted twice in estimating the total loss attributable to a defendant. Reviewing courts have found such errors to be material only where they bring the amount of loss into a different category for Guidelines purposes, such as from $900,000, which would carry a fourteen-level enhancement under § 2Bl.l(b)(l)(H), to $1.1 million, which would carry a sixteen-level enhancement under § 2Bl.l(b)(l)(I). See, e.g., United States v. Mickens, 453 F.3d 668, 671-72 (6th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Lee, 427 F.3d 881, 896 (11th

A: holding that a calculation of the amount of loss is a factual finding
B: 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
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 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.