With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". from disposition of collateral, our analysis is based on a calculation of McCormac’s intended “pecuniary harm.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B1.1, cmt. n. 2(A)(ii). The 2001 amendments to the sentencing guidelines for fraud make clear that intended loss should not be an inquiry into intent to repay, as suggested by case law interpreting the prior sentencing guideline, but rather should focus on the intended financial harm. See id. Thus, even though in many instances this will simply be an inquiry into whether a defendant intended to repay, when collateral is involved courts must also consider whether a defendant planned to return the collateral or anticipated that such collateral would be repossessed or foreclosed on by the lending institution. See Williams, 292 F.3d at 686 (<HOLDING>). Applying that standard here, we find that

A: holding that the amount that a defendant made available to himself by way of fraudulent deposits demonstrated the amount of loss intended
B: holding that while the nonprevailing partys financial condition is not appropriate to consider in determining whether to award attorneys fees it is appropriate to consider when determining the amount of the attorneys fees
C: holding that a court should consider pledged collateral when determining the amount of the intended loss
D: holding that the district court determines the amount of loss under the preponderance of the evidence standard
C.