Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
predicate acts to consider, the jury was legally obligated to acquit on Counts One and Two. See id. at 3-4 (“[A]cquittal was compelled as a matter of law once the jury reported its inability to find any unanimously proven predicate acts.”). There is a serious problem with Gotti’s interpretation of PJI 2.78. Acts as to which the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict must be disregarded in deciding two things — whether defendant is or is not guilty of racketeering. The drafters of PJI 2.78 were therefore not foreclosing a hung jury when they used the word “disregard.” Rather, the word choice is intended to ensure jury compliance with the unanimity rule required by Richardson that has since been engrafted onto substantive RICO violations. See Richardson, 526 U.S. at 824, 119 S.Ct. 1707 . Furthermore, Gotti’s interpretation flies in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the jury in a continuing criminal enterprise case must unanimously agree not only that defendant committed some continuing series of violations but also must agree as to which violations make up that continuing series
B. holding that failure to appear is also a continuing offense
C. holding that because a  1326 violation constitutes a continuing offense venue may lie in any district in which the continuing conduct occurred
D. holding that the doctrine may only be predicated on continuing unlawful acts and not on the continuing effects of earlier unlawful conduct
E. holding that insurer had a continuing duty to defend
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.