Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
III, concurs. 1 . The Fourth Circuit is one of two federal circuits that does not currently require a showing that the government intentionally delayed the indictment so as to gain a tactical advantage. See U.S. v. Automated Med. Laboratories, Inc., 770 F.2d 399 (4th Cir.1985); Howell v. Barker, 904 F.2d 889 (4th Cir.1990). Chief Justice TOAL dissenting: I respectfully dissent. In accordance with the majority of the federal circuits that have addressed the issue, I would hold that pre-indictment delay does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause unless a defendant can show both actual prejudice and that the State has intentionally delayed the issuance of an indictment in order to gain an unfair tactical advantage. See Jones v. Angelone, 94 F.3d 900, 905 (4th Cir.1996) . But leaving this aside, I disagree with the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the ninth circuit adheres to the rule that violations of the automatic stay are void and criticizing the bap decision in this case
B. recognizing that no federal circuit has addressed the issue
C. holding that reasonableness analysis applies in general jurisdiction case under federal circuit law
D. recognizing that the winter court rejected the ninth circuit sliding scale test because it was too lenient
E. recognizing that this test applies in every federal circuit save the fourth and the ninth
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.