Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the United States Code only serve as "prima fa-cie” evidence of the law unless they are enacted as "positive law,” in which case they too serve as legal evidence of the laws. Tax Analysts v. Internal Revenue Serv., 214 F.3d 179, 182 n. 1 (D.C.Cir.2000); see 1 U.S.C. § 204(a) ("[WJhenever titles of such Code [of Laws of the United States] shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the United States.”). Title 7 has not been enacted into positive law. See 1 U.S.C.A. § 204, United States Code Titles as Positive Law. In this case, therefore, the court is not bound by the codifier’s placement of FETRA in Title 7. Cf. United States v. Welden, 377 U.S. 95, 98 n. 3, 84 S.Ct. 1082, 12 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964) . 16 . It is also unsupported by the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when congress is silent on the issue of the burden of proof applicable to a common law affirmative defense that does not negate an element of the offense we presume congress intended the defendant to bear the burden of proof of the defense by a preponderance of the evidence
B. holding that upon approval by congress a compact between states becomes federal law that binds the states
C. holding that where congress has directed the agency to issue a rule without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule  congress has amended the law and does not offend the constitution
D. holding that when congress has not enacted a codification as positive law a change of arrangement by the codifier without the approval of congress which places portions of what was originally a single section in two separate sections should be given no weight
E. holding that an unconstitutional act of congress has no legal effect
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.