Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
because appellant Arn’s application for the modification of his pretrial release conditions also was a pretrial motion providing excludable time, no violation of the Speedy Trial Act occurred. See United States v. Wirsing, 867 F.2d 1227, 1230-31 (9th Cir.1989). 2. The district court’s misreading of a single phrase in the conspiracy instruction did not constitute plain error, because the written instructions provided to the jury properly stated the requisite conspiracy elements and unanimity requirement. See United States v. Ancheta, 38 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.1994). 3. The district court properly rejected appellants’ proffered factual impossibility instruction, as impossibility is not a defense to conspiracy or attempt. See United States v. Rodriguez, 360 F.3d 949, 957 (9th Cir.2004) . 4. The district court properly instructed the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the fccs orders relating to the tcpa are binding under the hobbs act
B. holding the meaning of commerce element in a different federal statute the hobbs act to be a question of law
C. holding that bribing a public official does not amount to a conspiracy with that official to extort the briber under the hobbs act
D. holding that impossibility is not a defense to attempts or conspiracy under the hobbs act
E. holding that proof of racketeering was not a separate prerequisite to criminal liability under the hobbs act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.