Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that Collins may have been eligible for an even larger penalty, as suggested by the ALJ’s application of a third-tier penalty. Fourth, Collins’s actions enabled Brown’s fraudulent actions, which targeted elderly customers considering complex financial products, with harm including withdrawal penalties of over $60,000 incurred by two of the victims. And the failures of supervision created a more general risk of wrongdoing in the office subject to Collins’s supervision. Thus, consideration of the four factors does not really help Collins’s cause. We note that Collins cites only two cases in which courts have set aside a fine for violating the Eighth Amendment, both featuring extremely large penalties contrasted with minimal harm. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 339, 118 S.Ct. 2028 (1998) ; United States ex rel. Bunk v. Birkart
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error
B. holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture
C. holding that the defendant conceded the accuracy of his prior convictions in his psi report by failing to object to the report
D. holding invalid forfeiture of 357000 for failing to report exported currency affecting only  the government and in a relatively minor way
E. holding that to establish a pattern of unlawful activity in a ease involving currency transaction report violations the government must prove that the currency transaction report violations were both repeated and related to one another
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.