Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
it was made. When Lucas pled guilty, this court’s decisions required the district court rather than the jury to determine the quantity of drugs for which a defendant was responsible under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). United States v. Jinadu, 98 F.3d 239, 247-48 (6th Cir.1996) (explaining that “the determination of the quantity of drugs involved is not an element of the offense” and that the sentencing judge, not the jury, must decide this issue). Although Lucas’s indictment t “had earlier announced the principle underlying the Apprendi rule in Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 119 S.Ct. 1215, 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999),” United States v. Flowal, 234 F.3d 932, 936 (6th Cir.2000), but Jones’s explicit holding was based on statutory construction. See Jones, 526 U.S. at 251-52, 119 S.Ct. 1215 . The Court’s statement that “under the Due
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a similar statute created separate offenses
B. holding that three phrases contained within the same subsection of the indecencywithaehild statute defined three separate offenses for juryunanimity purposes when separated in the disjunctive
C. holding that a complaint filed within three years of an accident complied with the michigan court rules and was not barred by the statute of limitations even though service was made more than three years after the accident
D. holding that the federal carjacking statute as it existed when the defendant was indicted established three separate offenses rather than a single offense with a choice of three maximum penalties and recognizing that this construction avoided serious constitutional questions on which precedent is not dispositive
E. holding that matters of statutory construction are questions of law for the court to decide rather than issues of fact
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.