With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by the defendant’s fraud, even though the defendant pled guilty to only two counts of a multiple count indictment for mail fraud. We rejected the argument of Woods that he could only be ordered to pay restitution for the amount involved in the particular offenses for which he was convicted, or $4,758. In affirming the restitution order for the full amount of loss to all investors, we stated that: The offense [in this case] is a scheme to defraud, and each count is simply an act in furtherance of the unitary scheme; therefore, establishing that a single count caused a specific loss would be difficult. It is the overall scheme that is central to all the counts and gives rise to the victims’ financial loss. Id. at 88. See also United States v. Martin, 788 F.2d 184, 189 (3d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). But see United States v. Whitney, 785 F.2d

A: holding that restitution under the victim and witness protection act need not be limited to  the specific amount alleged in the count of mail fraud to which defendant pled
B: holding that the victim and witness protection act limits the amount of restitution to the loss caused by the specific conduct forming the basis of the offense of conviction
C: holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction
D: holding that the amount of restitution is limited to the victims actual losses
A.