Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
sentencing judge impermissibly made factual findings in violation of tire Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See State v. Soto, 299 Kan. 102, 322 P.3d 334 (2014); State v. Hilt, 299 Kan. 176, 322 P.3d 367 (2014). Further, he does not argue that the collateral estoppel component of the Double Jeopardy Clause should bar the State from admitting evidence of his prior acquittal. See United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 156, 117 S. Ct. 633, 136 L. Ed. 2d 554 (1997) (applying Dowling and finding Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude sentencing judge from considering issues decided in prior case where defendant was acquitted when the sub sequent action was a lower standard of proof); Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 348-49, 110 S. Ct. 668, 107 L. Ed. 2d 708 (1990) ; 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law § 384. The only
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court
B. holding that a criminal acquittal does not have collateral estoppel effect on a later civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same conduct
C. holding that the dismissal of criminal charges for evidentiary insufficiency is an acquittal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause
D. holding that a prior acquittal does not preclude the admission of evidence of a defendants other alleged crimes in a prosecution for the bank robbery on the basis of collateral estoppel principles because    the prior acquittal did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case
E. holding that collateral estoppel component of tire double jeopardy clause did not preclude government from introducing defendants prior acquittal at trial because government was presented with lower standard of proof in the later case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.