Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
L.Ed.2d 403 (1987); United States v. Overmyer, 899 F.2d 457, 465 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 939, 111 S.Ct. 344, 112 L.Ed.2d 308 (1990). In denying Lee’s Motion to Dismiss, the district court relied on United States v. Swift, 809 F.2d 320 (6th Cir.1987), and United States v. Sarihifard, 155 F.3d 301 (4th Cir.1998). In Sivift, this court held that a false statement’s failure to lead the tribunal astray is irrelevant for 18 U.S.C. § 1623 analysis. 809 F.2d at 324. The court stated that “a false declaration satisfies the materiality requirement if a truthful statement might have assisted or influenced the grand jury in its investigation.” Id. (citing United States v. Richardson, 596 F.2d 157, 165 (6th Cir.1979)); see also United States v. Lutz, 154 F.3d 581, 588 (6th Cir.1998) ; United States v. DeZarn, 157 F.3d 1042, 1049
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that allegations of influence by an unnamed person outside the jury required the holding of an evidentiary hearing to determine extrinsic influence
B. holding that equally consistent circumstances of influence cannot be considered as evidence of undue influence
C. holding that materiality does not require a showing that the creditors were prejudiced by the false statement
D. holding that a statement is material if it has the natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing a decision making process showing of actual influence unnecessary to prove materiality
E. holding that the standard for determining whether false statement is material under 19 usc  1592a is whether statement has a natural tendency to influence or was capa ble of influencing the decision of the tribunal in making a determination required to be made
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.