Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
only did not know about SORNA, but also that this lack of knowledge contributed to his decision to evade well-known and well-established state law registration obligations. AFFIRMED. 1 . In his brief, Mr. Lawrance states that he "left Arizona prior to the Act's effective date and was in Oklahoma prior to the Attorney General's February 28, 2007 order.” Aplt. Br. 15. 2 . See United States v. Sallee, 2007 WL 3283739 (W.D.Okla. Aug. 13, 2007) (unpublished) (declining to apply SORNA to a defendant who completed his interstate travel in 2004); United States v. Heriot, 2007 WL 2199516 (D.S.C. July 27, 2007) (unpublished) (declining to apply the Act to a defendant who completed his interstate travel in June 2006); United States v. Muzio, 2007 WL 2159462 (E.D.Mo. July 26, 2007) (unpublished) ; United States v. Marvin Smith, 528 F.Supp.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the more than three month gap between the plaintiffs eeoc complaint and the allegedly adverse action was insufficient to show causation
B. holding that the average number of days to payment nearly doubled between the historical period and the preference period which based on the facts of that particular case made the payments outside the ordinary course of dealings between the plaintiff and defendant
C. holding that two separate incidents of rape were perpetrated against the same victim where an appreciable period of time elapsed between the incidents and intervening events occurred during the interim
D. holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation
E. holding sorna inapplicable to a defendant who traveled during the gap period between enactment and issuance of the interim rule and was indicted on march 15 2007
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.