Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by a prosecution witness, that there was a third individual involved in the October 8 robbery — specifically, a second individual riding in the van. Notably, counsel observed that the jury had "all the instructions on aiding and abetting,” and he did not accept the court’s invitation to comment further on the court’s proposed response. 6 . Under the Government’s theory of the case, Hopson appeared on the scene of the crime as the driver of the getaway van. 7 . We agree that the Government adduced sufficient evidence to satisfy the jurisdictional element as presently interpreted by this court. For example, Sanese's owner testified that Sánese uses money from its vending machines to purchase a variety of out-of-state goods. See United States v. Smith, 182 F.3d 452, 456 (6th Cir.1999) . 8 . We note that Hopson apparently failed to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because the victims which were robbed of money by the defendant did substantial business in beer wine and tobacco products virtually none of which originated in the state where the victims did business the government had demonstrated a de minimis effect on interstate commerce
B. holding that the requisite effect on interstate commerce for a 18 usc  1951 conviction is demonstrated by inter alia evidence that restaurant robbed by defendant had often purchased food products from outofstate vendors and that the money taken by defendant would have been used to buy more food products
C. holding that dairy products that originated outside of texas and shipped to texas then stopped in dallas were part of a continuous movement in interstate commerce the truck drivers who delivered the products locally in texas were engaged in interstate commerce for purpose of the motor carrier act exemption
D. holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce
E. holding that the offense of sexual battery requires the state prove the victims lack of consent regardless of the victims age and charge the jury on the same
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.