With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". been shut down, and the loss would have been limited to something less than it wound up being.” Although the language “as a consequence of the offense” mandates a causal connection between the fraud and the loss, we do not read this language to require that all losses associated with a given institution be directly attributable to fraud. We therefore find that the court’s legal conclusion that the enhancement does not apply is irreconcilable with its factual conclusion that $5 to $10 million in losses were caused by the fraud, independent of the initial failure of the rein-surer. The language of § 2F1.1(b)(6) is mandatory, directing the court to “increase by 4 levels” if the factual predicates of the enhancement are met.' See United States v. Tello, 9 F.3d 1119, 1129-30 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Velgar-Vivero, 8 F.3d 236,

A: holding that imperative clause in ussg  3e11 directing sentencing court to decrease the offense level by 1 additional level if certain factual predicates are determined eschews any court discretion to act otherwise
B: holding that arithmetical error that resulted in an increase to a defendants base offense level pursuant to the sentencing guidelines affected his substantial rights even though the resulting sentence was within the range for the correct offense level
C: holding that any error by a district court in applying a sentencing enhancement is harmless if it did not change a defendants total offense level
D: holding the issue of standing is waived if not asserted at the district court level
A.