Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by our decision in United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088, 1107-12 (11th Cir.2002) (rejecting this argument because "the jurisdictional provision here is not a traditional element, or otherwise an essential ingredient, of a criminal offense”). He also argues the MDLEA violates due process because (1) § 1903(a) does not require a nexus between the criminal conduct and the United States, (2) § 1903(f) allows for forum shopping because it sets venue at the point of entry into the United States, and (3) the provision in § 1903(d) precluding defenses based on international law violates his liberty interest in ensuring that he not be prosecuted in a jurisdiction bearing no ties to his offense. These arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320, 1325-26 (11th Cir.2003)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states
B. holding a nexus to the united states is not required and noting the venue provision comports with us const art iii  2 cl 3
C. holding that the exercise of judicial power under article iii of the united states constitution requires an actual case or controversy
D. holding that issuance of detention order for purpose of saliva sampling based on reasonable suspicion comports with vermont and united states constitutions
E. holding removal of city councilman governed by minn const art 13  2 1857 identical predecessor to minn const art 8  5
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.