Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
similar to that of the district corad; in this case. That is, they refuse to view the guideline restrietively, and allow the enhancement where a direct implication of death follows from the 10th Cir.)(stating without detailed discussion that robber’s statement to teller to put money in bag or “the person behind me will shoot someone” is considered an express threat under the guidelines, citing the commentary), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 926, 114 S.Ct. 333, 126 L.Ed.2d 278 (1993); United States v. Smith, 973 F.2d 1374, 1378 (8th Cir.1992)(concluding that combination of threatening teller with statement “You don’t want to find out” and appearance as if he had gun under his coat constituted express threat of death); United States v. Strandberg, 952 F.2d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir.1991). In so ruling, these courts have looked to the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a defendant fails to establish prejudice if he does not allege that the state could not have brought him to trial within the recapture window
B. holding that sjection 2b31b2f does not require that the defendant state that he intends to mil the teller if his demands are not met
C. holding that if both willful and malicious are not met the debt is dischargeable
D. holding that even if the standard for waiver is clear the standard was not met
E. recognizing that rule 8 pleading standard does not require detailed factual allegations but it demands more than an unadorned thedefendantunlawfullyharmedme accusation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.