Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). a. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence introduced at trial was sufficient to convict Connelly of the false statement charge. A rational jury could have concluded that (a) E.J.R.C. was truthful when she testified that Connelly threatened her with jail if she did not perform oral.sex; (b) Connelly, an experienced police officer and former tribal prosecutor, fully understood the FBI agents’ questions; and (c) Connelly was not credible because his statements to Agent Kimball and Agent Smiedala about whether he threatened E.J.R.C. with jail were inconsistent. See, e.g., Selby, 557 F.3d at 978 . b. Moreover, we find no inconsistency between
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that persecution of a woman because of her government job or her husbands position as a police officer was not on account of a particular social group
B. holding that a wifes minimal involvement in her husbands business coupled with the lack of evidence that she knew of or intended to further her husbands fraudulent schemes was insufficient evidence of conspiracy
C. holding that no rational jury could conclude there was no intent to distribute where the defendants possessed 3000 pounds of marijuana
D. holding that it was appellants burden to prove that her husbands death occurred in the scope of employment and that she was eligible for widows benefits
E. holding a rational jury was entitled to conclude that a government officials misstatement regarding her husbands employment was not an inadvertent mistake
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.