Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the district court was not clearly erroneous in accepting [the officer's] testimony that he only promised to make [the defendant's] cooperation known to the United States Attorney’s office and gave no guarantee of a reduced sentence. Although [the officer] told [the defendant] that cooperating defendants generally ‘fared better time-wise,’ this statement did not amount to an illegal inducement: 'telling the [defendant] in a noncoercive manner of the realistically expected penalties and encouraging [him] to tell the truth is no more than affording [him] the chance to make an informed decision with respect to [his] cooperation with the government.' ” (Quoting United States v. Ballard, 586 F.2d 1060, 1063 (5th Cir.1978)). Accord United States v. Levy, 955 F.2d 1098, 1105 (7th Cir.1992) ; United States v. Meirovitz, 918 F.2d 1376,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that federal agents indication to defendant that his cooperation would be reported to the united states attorney did not make defendants confession involuntary
B. holding that united states attorney was not required to abide by a secret service agents promise to a defendant to drop federal charges in exchange for defendants cooperation where the united states attorney never sanctioned the agreement and the promise was clearly outside the agents authority
C. holding that cooperation was insufficient where the defendants cooperation was based on his confession to the charged crimes
D. holding that agents promise to inform prosecutor of defendants cooperation does not render a subsequent confession involuntary
E. holding that an officers promise to bring defendants cooperation to the attention of the prosecutor did not make confession involuntary
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.