Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
an official paper record tracing the vehicle’s ownership. In other words, the regulations at issue in this case are the “safeguards” designed “to protect purchasers in the sale of motor vehicles with altered or reset odometers” that are contemplated by the Act’s purposes. See 49 U.S.C. § 32701(b)(2) (2000). They prevent unscrupulous dealers from using their own procedures to mislead a purchaser about a vehicle’s mileage — not only with respect to the actual number of miles driven, but where those miles were driven and by whom. See 49 C.F.R. § 580.2 (2004) (“The purpose of this part is to provide purchasers of motor vehicles with odometer information to assist them in determining a vehicle’s condition and value Yazzie v. Amigo Chevrolet, Inc., 189 F.Supp.2d 1245, 1248-49 (D.N.M.2001) . The identity of former owners, of critical
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a man standing between two insured vehicles while attempting to jump start one of them was occupying them when one of the vehicles between which he was standing was struck by a third vehicle
B. holding the purpose of a checkpoint was valid when officers stopped vehicles to look for any violations on the vehicles such as drivers license equipment or inspection
C. holding in a patent case that when the plaintiff brought the suit in federal district court it submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to all the issues embraced in the suit including those pertaining to the counterclaim of the defendants
D. holding that allegations of specific intent to defraud with respect to the vehicles mileage are not required to bring suit under  32710a when a dealer manipulated title procedures in violation of the odometer act to hide the identity of the vehicles prior owner
E. holding that to violate a specific intent statute the defendant must act with the purpose of violating the law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.