Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
only if that effect can be traced to a discriminatory purpose.” United States v. Clary, 34 F.3d 709, 712 (8th Cir.1994) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Even assuming — without in any way deciding — that the law disproportionately impacts Native Americans, Parshall provides no meaningful evidence that Congress intended to discriminate against Native Americans when it passed 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c). He argues that Congress should have been aware of the law’s likely disproportionate impact on Native Americans, which suggests, according to Parshall, “at least a possibility” of discriminatory intent. Such assertions fall short of establishing the Congressional intent necessary to show a violation of the Fifth Amendment. See id.; United States v. DeMarce, 564 F.3d 989, 1000 (8th Cir.2009) . C. Eighth Amendment Parshall argues that his
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the cap does not violate equal protection
B. holding that statute that imposed different requirements to establish parental rights on father than on mother did not violate fathers right to equal protection under the law
C. holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection
D. holding that a 30year sentence imposed under 18 usc  2241c did not violate a defendantnative americans equal protection rights
E. holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.