Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in state court and the Attorney General issues a scope certification, then the Act requires that the case be removed to federal court and the United States be substituted as the party defendant. Id. at 2679(d)(2). However, section 2679(d)(2) goes further than section 2679(d)(1) by stating, “This certification of the Attorney General shall conclusively establish scope of office or employment for purposes of removal.” Whether a federal employee is ultimately immune from suit, therefore, depends entirely upon whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment when the events which underlie the lawsuit occurred. Previously in the Fourth Circuit this determination was left solely in the hands of the Attorney General. See Johnson v. Carter, 983 F.2d 1316, 1320 (4th Cir.) , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 57, 126
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that intent of parties to choice of law must be given effect
B. holding that effect must be given if possible to every clause and word of a statute
C. holding that plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive
D. holding that the attorney generals scope certification is to be given conclusive effect
E. holding to the same effect
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.