Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
official charged with detaining a federal prisoner in order to fraudulently obtain access to that prisoner. Simply stated, Hussein Addine Selmen is a federal prisoner regardless of whether he is detained directly by the Marshals Service or by a local official to whom the Marshals Service has properly delegated this responsibility. Access to him is therefore a federal issue within the jurisdiction of the Marshals Service. Accordingly, any false statement made in order to gain access to him falls within the scope of § 1001, which, as the Government correctly notes, hinges not on the person to whom the statement is made, but rather on whether the statement falls within the jurisdiction of a branch of the federal government. See Davis, 8 F.3d at 929; see also Gibson, 881 F.2d at 322 . Here, the statement clearly falls within the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that federal rule of evidence 8034 the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment does not apply to statements made by doctors
B. holding that payments in the nature of support need not be made directly to the spouse or dependent to be nondischargeable
C. holding that tjhere is no implicit requirement that the statements be made directly to or even be received by the federal department or agency in question
D. holding that the trial court properly refused to suppress statements made by defendant to the police on the ground that the interrogation resulting in those statements was not electronically recorded since  there is no federal or state due process requirement that interrogations and confessions be electronically recorded 
E. holding that a refusal to allow a question is an implicit ruling on a request to ask that question
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.