Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Thus, facilitation of aggravated burglary presents a risk of physical injury sufficient to be classified as a “violent felony.” Sawyers, relying on United States v. Pazzanese, 982 F.2d 251 (8th Cir.1992), argues that criminal facilitation is never a “violent felony” under the ACCA. Although Sawyers commingles the arguments, there are essentially two components to this claim: first, because of the categorical approach, facilitation crimes cannot be classified as a “violent felony” based on the underlying crime; and second, facilitation does not meet the inherent mens rea requirement in the ACCA. The first argument is quickly disposed of. First, criminal facilitation in Tennessee requires the government to show that the underlying crime actually occurred. See Parker, 932 S.W.2d at 951 (fodtnote omitted); see also State v. Virges,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that proof of an agreement to commit a felony is not a necessary element in a conviction for the commission of the felony
B. holding that for facilitation of a felony the state must prove the commission of a specified felony and the assistance the accused gave to the person committing the specified felony
C. holding that drug felony under state law can constitute an aggravated felony for federal sentencing guidelines purposes even if the same conduct would not constitute a felony under federal law
D. holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense
E. holding the state must prove that at the time of the homicide the defendant was engaged in the commission of the felony
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.