With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". [Johnson] and approval of [Britt].” (Emphasis added.) Although Britt nominally had final approval authority over Johnson’s transactions, Johnson retained ultimate discretion to invest the funds in the account. Pursuant to this agreement, Britt transferred $5.75 million into an account controlled by Johnson. Britt testified that he “did not consider” himself to “ha[ve] authority” over the account. Britt represented to a third party that the account was “at the discretion of Mr. Johnson.” Johnson himself noted in an email to Britt that Britt had trusted Johnson with Britt’s money. In light of this evidence, it is clear that Johnson committed the fraud by purporting to exercise investment discretion over the victim’s funds. See United States v. Davuluri, 239 F.3d 902, 909 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). The district court properly applied the abuse

A: holding that employer controlled the victims will at least in part by using his position as the victims employer
B: holding that abuse of trust enhancement applied where defendant had discretion to engage in commodities transactions on victims behalf without victims supervision
C: holding admissible testimony of the victims daughter regarding a telephone call from the defendant to the victim hours before the victims death and the victims emotions following the telephone call where defendant claimed accident
D: holding that the crime victims compensation act which compensated innocent victims of criminal acts was an attempt to remedy that situation and therefore applied retroactively
B.