Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that if the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed on July 12, 1979, the July 12, 1984 indictment was filed one day too late. Id. at 1531. Finding the Guerro decision persuasive, the Eleventh Circuit held that in conspiracy cases — whether an overt or covert act is alleged — the day following the event is when the statute of limitation begins to run. Id. at 1532-33. In a case where the conspiracy continued until July 12, 1979, the following day was the first day of the limitation period, and the indictment filed on July 12, 1984 was timely. Id. at 1533. This Circuit has long held that the day of the offense is excluded when determining the trigger date for the statute of limitation. See, e.g., Wiggins v. United States, 64 F.2d 950, 950-51 (9th Cir.1933) ; see also United States v. Tawab, 984 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that threeyear statute of limitations was not an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus
B. holding that an indictment returned on march 7 1930 was not barred by a threeyear limitation statute where the offense occurred on march 71927
C. holding that subsections 7751515  16 did not apply where threeyear statute of limitations expired on january 25 2006 and thus prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations
D. holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense
E. holding that an allegation as to the time of the offense is not an essential element of the offense charged in the indictment and within reasonable time limits proof of any date before the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations is sufficient
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.