With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In re Amy Unknown provided no clarification on this provision, which has unambiguously required proximate cause under the plain language of the statute since its enactment in 1994. Because Gonzalez failed to raise arguments regarding “other losses” and specific categories of damages in his initial briefing, he has waived this issue on appeal. In any event, fact questions “capable of resolution by the district court upon proper objection at sentencing can never constitute plain error.” Gonzalez’s argument that Vicky’s costs for “educational ... counseling needs” predated his criminal acts and therefore this category of costs could not be proximately caused by his crime is a factual issue. It cannot be the basis for plain error, and even were we to consider i 6 (5th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Cf. Rita. 551 U.S. at 359, 127 S.Ct. 2456

A: holding that district courts statement that it believed sentence would adequately address the objectives of punishment and deterrence was adequate explanation
B: holding that trial courts failure sua sponte to give reasonabledoubt in struction during punishment phase about pen packets offered during punishment was harmless error because sentence imposed was well within punishment range and prosecutor had asked for greater sentence
C: holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment
D: holding that civil settlements have no bearing on decisions of criminal punishment and imposition of a restitution order is a form of punishment and part of a criminal sentence
A.