Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of in personam jurisdiction.” Tom Togs, 318 N.C. at 366, 348 S.E.2d at 786. Our courts typically look at the following factors in determining whether minimum contacts exist: (1) the quantity of the contacts, (2) the nature and quality of the contacts, (3) the source and connection of the cause of action to the contacts, (4) the interest of the forum state, and (5) the convenience to the parties. Bruggeman, 138 N.C. App. at 617, 532 S.E.2d at 219. These factors are not to be applied mechanically, but rather, the court must weigh the factors and determine what is fair and reasonable to both parties. Phoenix Am. Corp. v. Brissey, 46 N.C. App. 527, 531, 265 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1980). See also B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Tire King of Greensboro, Inc., 80 N.C. App. 129, 132, 341 S.E.2d 65, 67 (1986) . Here, the precise quantity of contacts is not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive
B. holding that in order to sustain death sentence as a matter of fundamental fairness the jury must find that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors and this balance must be found beyond a reasonable doubt
C. holding that no single factor controls and that all factors must be weighed in light of fundamental fairness and the circumstances of the case
D. holding that a district court should decide a motion for expedited discovery on the entirety of the record to date and the reasonableness of the request in light of all the surrounding circumstances unless the circumstances are such that the notaro factors apply
E. holding that failure to charge that jury must find aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt violates fundamental fairness and requires reversal of death sentence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.