Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in lieu of intended loss.” United States v. es allegedly received in the June 18, 1988, accident amounted to $23,-019, $10,000 of which was for “pain and suffering.” Three months later, he settled for $4,000. Most of the claims were settled in a similar manner, at least until the scheme began to unravel. The use of an objective “probable loss” analysis is particularly appropriate in a case such as the one before us. Each substantive count was tied to a different accident and a corresponding attempt to defraud. Many of these discrete facets of the ongoing scheme had flowered into fully realized crimes for which the actual loss, i.e., the settlement with the insurance company, provides conclusive evidence of the probable loss. See United States v. Bailey, 975 F.2d 1028 (4th Cir.1992) . We find no clear error in the court’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand
B. holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss
C. holding that the loss of a contract failed to constitute ascertainable loss under cutpa
D. holding that intended loss applies to attempt crimes only and that outofpocket loss is the relevant figure under  2f11 for fully realized crimes
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.