With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at least as strongly, to a sentencing regime in which the amount of loss caused by a fraud is a critical determinant of the length of a defendant’s sentence. 506 F.3d 170, 179 (2d Cir.2007). This court has not applied Dura Pharmaceuticals’s strict loss causation standard to criminal fraud cases, but we have endorsed a more general loss causation principle, permitting a district court to impose sentencing enhancements only for losses that “resulted from” the defendant’s fraud. United States v. Hicks, 217 F.3d 1038, 1048 (9th Cir.2000). In Hicks, we stated that “[t]he Guidelines’ ‘relevant conduct’ provision requires a defendant’s sentence to be based on ‘all harm that resulted from the acts or omissions’ of the defendant.” Id. (quoting U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(3) (1995)); id. at 1048-49 (<HOLDING>). Berger now urges us to take the next step and

A: holding that moving force in the monell context includes both causationinfact and proximate causation
B: holding that government must show both butfor and proximate causation in establishing loss
C: holding to warrant reversal the appellant must show both the error of the ruling and resulting prejudice
D: holding that government must merely show that defendant knew that it was a bank that he intended to influence
B.