With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is also undisputed that when it was returned to the victim it was damaged beyond repair, to the point of being totaled and thereby unusable by the victim. Clearly, an intervening event occurred, causing the damage. At the sentencing hearing, the government admitted it had no evidence to show how or when the vehicle incurred such damage. As a result, it did not carry its burden of showing this intervening cause “was directly related to the offense conduct,” Speakman, 594 F.Bd at 1172, or that the causal connection between the conduct and the loss was otherwise not too attenuated, either factually or temporally. See id. at 1171-72. As a result, the district court erred in ordering restitution concerning the vehicle. See, e.g., United States v. Kieffer, 681 F.3d 1143, 1171 (10th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 996, 184

A: holding that defendant failed to meet the burden of strict proof required to show abandonment
B: holding that a district court may order restitution despite a settlement agreement
C: holding that the state failed to meet its burden when the record failed to show that the jurors would or would not be available after a weeks continuance
D: holding district court order of restitution failed for lack of proof when government failed to meet burden
D.