Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
intended to preclude separate convictions and sentences for the ongoing criminal conduct and underlying crimes used to establish such conduct. We too think the Iowa legislature sought to encourage the imposition of such cumulative sentences. B. Merger pursuant to Iowa Code section 701.9. Iowa Code section 701.9 — Iowa’s merger statute — provides: No person shall be convicted of a public offense which is necessarily included in another public offense of which the person is convicted; If the jury returns a verdict of guilty of more than one offense and such verdict conflicts with this section, thé court shall enter judgment of guilty of the greater offense only. Our resolution of Reed’s double jeopardy claim renders this section inapplicable. See Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d at 344 . IV. Corroboration of Accomplices’ Testimony.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the double jeopardy clause prohibits courts from imposing greater penalties than the legislature intended
B. holding that if double jeopardy clause is not violated because legislature intended double punishment section 7019 is not applicable and merger is not required
C. holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court
D. holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment
E. holding double jeopardy clause applicable to civil penalties under the false claims act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.