Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
crimes and crimes involving only accidental, negligent, or reckless conduct. It listed crimes which, “though dangerous, are not typically committed by those whom one normally labels ‘armed career criminals.’ ” Id. at 146-47, 128 S.Ct. 1581 (citing as examples “Ark.Code Ann. § 8-4 — 103(a)(2)(A)(ii) (2007) (reckless polluters); 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(1) (individuals who negligently introduce pollutants into the sewer system); 18 U.S.C. § 1365(a) (individuals who recklessly tamper with consumer products); [18 U.S.C.] § 1115 (seamen whose in s reckless endangerment statute is not a crime of violence under Begay)-, Gray, 535 F.3d at 131-32 (same with respect to New York reckless endangerment statute because it “does not criminalize purposeful or deliberate conduct”); Smith, 544 F.3d at 786 ; United States v. Herrick, 545 F.3d 53, 60
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that neither recklessness nor gross negligence is a sufficient mens rea to establish that a conviction is for a crime of violence under section 16
B. holding that one can be convicted of attempted manslaughter under the subsections of section 765205 that require intentional conduct but not under the subsection that only requires the mens rea of recklessness
C. holding that the enhanced minimum sentence for discharging a firearm requires no additional mens rea specific to the firing of the gun
D. holding that those crimes with a mens rea of negligence or recklessness do not trigger the enhanced penalties mandated by the acca
E. holding that a mens rea of unlawfully in the indictment was sufficient because the indictment referenced the applicable statute which required a reckless mens rea
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.