Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
under 18 U.S.C. § 1593 for considerable, involuntary time and expense resulting from the need to respond to frivolous and unauthorized actions of the Defendant in the mis-enforcement of the internal revenue laws of the federal United States. Id. at ¶ 6.3.1. See also Brief, at pp. 15-17 (further detailing the “History of of Interaction With Defendant(s) and Their Employer”). Under similar facts, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Atkinson v. O’Neill, 867 F.2d 589, 590 (10th Cir.1989), that “[w]hen an action is one against named individual defendants, but the acts complained of consist of actions taken by defendants in their official capacity as agents of the United States, the action is in fact one against the United States.” Accord Burgos v. Milton, 709 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1983) . Insofar as the Petition may be read to assert
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states
B. holding that despite plaintiffs allegations of a conspiracy they did not suggest that any of the acts committed by individual defendants occurred in the united states
C. holding that ajlthough the  action is nominally one against individual defendants the acts complained of consist of actions taken by defendants in their official capacity as agents of the united states and that under such circumstances the action is in fact one against the united states
D. holding that plaintiffs in the absence of a contrary expression from congress  shall have an action under ftca against the united states as well as a bivens action against the individual officials alleged to have infringed their constitutional rights
E. holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.