Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the applicant’s information-a confidential informant, Slycord, and Carroll-White-were facing criminal charges. However, a fair read of the application in its entirety makes this point clear. The application states that Slycord and Carroll-White’s shared residence was raided on December 4, 1999, and that officers found a substantial amount of methamphetamine therein. It further states that the signing officer interviewed Carroll-White and Slycord two days later, on December 6. The issuing judge could reasonably infer that Carroll-White and Slycord were likely to face serious drug charges. Moreover, even if the warrant application were corrected as Oleson suggests, probable cause would still exist to support its issuance. See United States v. Jacobs, 986 F.2d 1231, 1233-34 (8th Cir.1993) . The district court did not err in denying
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an arrest warrant can authorize entry into a dwelling only where the officials executing the warrant have reasonable or probable cause to believe the person named in the warrant is within
B. holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant
C. holding that probable cause is the appropriate standard for  3144 material witness warrants
D. holding that hearing on warrants validity required only where defendant can show warrant would not have established probable cause if corrected
E. holding invalid warrant did not create probable cause for arrest
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.