Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
AND JUDGMENT ROBERT E. BACHARACH, Circuit Judge. Mr. Miguel Angel Gutierrez-Carranza was convicted on federal charges and faced unrelated charges in Mexico. After the federal conviction, he requested extradition to Mexico and the district court denied the request based on a “lack of jurisdiction.” R. vol, I, at 7. We affirm. The defendant had no power to initiate his own extradition. The court’s power to order extradition derives from 18 U.S.C. § 3184. Under § 3184, a district court can initiate extradition proceedings only after the federal government files a sworn complaint for extradition based on a request from a foreign jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C. § 3184; see Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 186, 23 S.Ct. 98, 47 L.Ed. 130 (1902) . Therefore, extradition could take place only
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing with respect to a virtually identical predecessor to  3184 that a complaint must be made under oath charging the crime for which extradition is sought
B. holding that a district court may not rely on a charging document without first establishing that the crime charged was the same crime for which the defendant was convicted
C. recognizing a similar exception to its rule with respect to corporations
D. holding that once the statute is found to be divisible the court must look to the charging papers and judgment of conviction to determine if the actual crime of which defendant was convicted was a crime of violence but emphasizing that the court is not to examine the particular facts underlying the conviction
E. holding the same with respect to an apartment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.