Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986)), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1090, 126 S.Ct. 1026, 163 L.Ed.2d 854 (2006). An officer may therefore be liable under § 1983 “ ‘for the natural consequences of his actions.’ ” Id. (quoting Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 187, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961)). This includes liability for acts giving rise to the ultimate harm, even if the harm is executed by someone else. Powers v. Hamilton Cnty. Pub. Defender Comm’n, 501 F.3d 592, 609 (6th Cir.2007) (“Even if an intervening third party is the immediate trigger for the plaintiffs injury, the defendant may still be proximately liable, provided that the third party’s actions were foreseeable.”), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 813, 129 S.Ct. 44, 172 L.Ed.2d 21 (2008); see also Paige v. Coyner, 614 F.3d 273, 281-82 (6th Cir.2010) ; Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 311-12 (6th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that for a retaliation claim to be viable a prisoner must allege inter alia that a state actor took adverse action against him because of his protected conduct
B. holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor
C. holding state actor could be liable for retaliation for making false statements to plaintiffs employer causing her to be fired
D. holding that defendant could be charged for making false statements to treasury officials under the tax evasion statute or the statute prohibiting false statements to government officials
E. holding that various law enforcement personnel and judges were victims of the crime of making false statements to a government agency for purposes of  3a12a where the defendant made false statements about the officials to the irs causing the irs to investigate the officials certainly had the effect of making these individuals the defendants victims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.