With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Having determined that the district court’s sentencing calculations were based oh a proper interpretation of § 2F1.1(b)(1), we turn to the district court’s assessment of the amount of the intended loss. We find that the district court’s determination that Kipta intended to defraud First Chicago out of the entire $171,355.46 was not clearly erroneous. The fraudulent letter that Kipta used to back her deposits stated that she had -reserves of $800,000.00, an amount more than sufficient to cover the deposits into the First Chicago account. There was nothing to limit the amount of funds available for withdrawal, and the corresponding potential for loss by First Chicago, to less than the total amount deposited into the account. See United States v. Yusufu, 63 F.3d 505, 513 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Bonanno, 146 F.3d

A: holding that a calculation of the amount of loss is a factual finding
B: holding that the record must support by a preponderance of the evidence the conclusion that mr smith realistically intended a 440896 loss or that a loss in that amount was probable
C: holding that the amount that a defendant made available to himself by way of fraudulent deposits demonstrated the amount of loss intended
D: holding that a court should consider pledged collateral when determining the amount of the intended loss
C.