With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to defraud the banks of the full face amount of the worthless checks.” Id. at 188. The fraudulent check amount that Dul-lum argues should not be included in the total loss for purposes of determining his enhancement was the $10,000 rental check he cashed, which served as the basis for the bank fraud count. He admitted, however, that he intended the money to “help out some of [his] financial burdens,” including a withdrawal of $7,000 to pay back his home equity line and his intention to use the money to cover any outstanding payments on the rental property if necessary. He only repaid to the bank the fraudulent check amount after a Secret Service investigation had begun and his accounts were frozen. Dullum did not pre-vide any evidence to the contrary at sentencing. See id. at 194 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Strozier, 981 F.2d 281, 285

A: holding that intended loss applies to attempt crimes only and that outofpocket loss is the relevant figure under  2f11 for fully realized crimes
B: holding that a court should consider pledged collateral when determining the amount of the intended loss
C: holding that a sentencing judge may consider the face value of deposited checks as sufficient evidence that it was the intended loss although it cannot mechanically be assumed and the defendant can then produce evidence of his or her own in an attempt to convince the court that another figure was intended
D: holding that an intended loss  cannot exceed the loss a defendant could have occasioned if his or her fraud had been entirely successful
C.