Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Court’s use of the disjunctive in defining the relationship requirement in H.J. Inc. “suggests that the Court meant to craft a broad test of relatedness”). Applying the test set forth in H.J. Inc., the court concludes that the first indictment clearly contains sufficient facts to satisfy the relationship requirement. The indictment alleges that the defendant committed all of the predicate acts of criminal activity charged in the indictment, and that he misused his position as Sheriff to engage in each of the predicate acts. Thus, the predicate acts shared a common “participant” (the defendant) and a common “method[] of commission” (abuse of the defendant’s power as Sheriff). H.J. Inc., 492 U.S. at 240, 109 S.Ct. 2893; see also United States v. Hively, 437 F.3d 752, 762 (8th Cir.2006) ; United States v. Lovin, 2007 WL 167454, at
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted
B. holding that evidence was sufficient where inter alia the victim woke up to find the defendant on top of her and engaged in sex
C. holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish a pattern of racketeering where inter alia the predicate acts of mail fraud shared a common participant the defendant an elected state prosecutor and a common method of commission abuse of the defendants power as prosecuting attorney
D. recognizing that commission is not bound by statutory or common law rules of evidence
E. recognizing that even evidence of a defendants and a witnesss prior bad acts was admissible to show inter alia the defendants familiarity with the witness
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.