Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
it indicated so unequivocally.” United States v. Picklesimer, 585 F.2d 1199, 1203 (3rd Cir.1978). It would violate both congressional intent and longstanding practice for us to infer quantity limitations where no such limitations are affirmatively stated. This straightforward interpretation of the provision makes sense of the language. Although the linguistic conventions of the regulation are not entirely consistent, it appears that phrases based on the effect of the substance are included in the legal description when the category is denominated by a term based on its effect on users — for example, “stimulant” or “depressant” — and not when the category is denomin ilar language was merely a description of the listed drugs); United States v. White, 560 F.2d 787, 789 (7th Cir.1977) ; United States v. Nickles, 509 F.2d 810 (5th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an unconstitutional act of congress has no legal effect
B. holding that where congress has directed the agency to issue a rule without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule  congress has amended the law and does not offend the constitution
C. holding that a customer list may be protectable as a trade secret if it is secret and the court examines and determines if it is protectable based on three factors 1 what steps if any an employer has taken to maintain the confidentiality of a customer list 2 whether a departing employee acknowledges that the customer list is confidential and 3 whether the content of the list is readily ascertainable
D. holding that cfr  130812d is a list of drugs that congress has determined to have a stimulant effect on the central nervous system
E. holding to the same effect
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.