Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(quoting United States v. Vesich, 724 F.2d 451, 454 (5th Cir.1984)), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923, 107 S.Ct. 329, 93 L.Ed.2d 302 (1986). The authority for this proposition derives from the opinion in Pettibone v. United States, 148 U.S. 197, 13 S.Ct. 542, 37 L.Ed. 419 (1893), where, in interpret t have a relationship in time, causation, or logic with the judicial proceedings.” Id. at 599, 115 S.Ct. 2357. We see an obvious and overwhelming nexus in time, causation, and logic between Novak's willful and repeated violations of the lawful conditions of his supervised release and the sentencing proceeding imposing those conditions in the first place. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by the pre-Aguilar analysis of our sister circuit in Haiti v. United States, 260 F.2d 744, 746 (9th Cir.1958) , and its progeny. 12 . Indeed, the government
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the tort of interference with prospective contractual relations as a subspecies of the broader tort of interference with prospective economic advantage
B. recognizing that wrongful or malicious interference with atwill employment contract may give rise to a tortious interference claim the fact that the employment is at the will of the employer and the employee does not make it one at the will of third parties
C. recognizing the tort of wrongful interference with anothers business relations
D. holding improper conduct to be an element of the tort of intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship
E. holding that interference with terms of anothers probation was not interference with due administration of justice under  1503 reading omnibus clause of  1503 narrowly ejusdem generis to relate to conduct designed to interfere with the process of arriving at an appropriate judgment in a pending case and which disturb the ordinary and proper functions of the court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.