Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
We owe deference to In re Ruiz-Lopez under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). The BIA reasonably relied on In re Ruiz-Lopez because there is no material difference between the Washington and California statutes. Section 2800.2(a) defines the elements of the crime. To violate the California statute, the defendant must “deliberately flout[] lawful authority” by fleeing or attempting to elude a pursuing officer, In re Ruiz-Lopez, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 556, just as the Washington statute requires; and the defendant must also “recklessly endanger! ] the officer, other drivers, passengers, pedestrians, or property,” id., again as is true in Washington. See Penuliar v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 603, 609-10 (9th Cir.2008) , ovemled in part on other grounds by Sykes v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. holding that under california law section 28002 requires a reckless mens rea
C. 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
D. 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
E. holding that the enhanced minimum sentence for discharging a firearm requires no additional mens rea specific to the firing of the gun
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.