F.2d at 452. We observed that “[the defendant] could elect whether or not to exercise the option, and it was far from certain that he ever would have been successful in doing so or that the full value of the home would have been lost.” Id. We concluded that the loss should have been calculated by using the value of the option rather than the value of the entire house. Id. Smith and Whitehead suggest that when a defendant uses a stolen credit card number to rent a vehicle, the amount of the loss under § 2F1.1 is not necessarily the market value of the vehicle in question. In instances in which no evidence is presented as to actual losses sustained by victims of the fraudulent scheme, the determinative factor is the loss that the defendant intended to inflict. See Smith, 951 F.2d at 1168 (<HOLDING>). Cf. 2 Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr.,
holding that the record must support by a preponderance of the evidence the conclusion that mr smith realistically intended a 440896 loss or that a loss in that amount was probable holding the defendant responsible for the greater of the actual or intended loss holding that the district court determines the amount of loss under the preponderance of the evidence standard holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand holding that the district court must make findings on the record as to the basis for its conclusion about the amount of actual loss