Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
government had no obligation to prove that the defendant had such knowledge. Id. at 189, 194, 118 S.Ct. 1939. Rather, the term “willfully” in that context required the government to prove only that the defendant “knew that his conduct was unlawful.” Id. at 195, 118 S.Ct. 1939. In light of these precedents, we conclude there is no basis for requiring the government to prove that a person charged with violating IEE-PA and the ITR was aware of a specific licensing requirement. While the prohibitions imposed by IEEPA and the ITR are for conduct that is not “obviously illegal,” see Henderson, 243 F.3d at 1173, the “danger of ensnaring individuals engaged in apparently innocent conduct,” Bryan, 524 U.S. at 194, 118 S.Ct. 1939, is no greater under IEEPA than under the st 57, 61 (D.D.C.2005) . Applying these principles to the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that proof of relevant market is essential under  2
B. holding that exemption under the ada does not preclude liability under the rehabilitation act
C. holding that under bryan proof of willfulness under  1705c of ieepa does not require knowledge of the licensing requirements under the itr
D. holding that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof applicable in fraud actions does not apply to the proof of misrepresentations under ors 743612
E. holding that a conviction under section 2422b does not require the involvement of a minor
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.