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
holding that moving force in the monell context includes both causationinfact and proximate causation holding that government must merely show that defendant knew that it was a bank that he intended to influence holding to warrant reversal the appellant must show both the error of the ruling and resulting prejudice holding that government must show both butfor and proximate causation in establishing loss holding that for the administrative position of the government to be substantially justified it must have a reasonable basis both in law and fact