Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in alcohol possession cases, on the present record, the State introduced no evidence of the contents of the bottle possessed by appellant, nor did appellant admit or stipulate to the contents of the container. Cf. J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1379 (Fla.1998) ; A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding plaintiff must make concrete showing of a prima facie claim of actionable harm denying motion to quash subpoena to undercover identity of doe defendants where inter alia plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to show it could establish prima facie claim
B. holding to prove possession the state must show that a defendant possessed a certain substance the substance was illegal and he had knowledge of the presence of the substance
C. holding that a plaintiffs prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts is reviewed de novo
D. holding juveniles admission that he possessed beer is sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the substance was alcoholic in nature
E. holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.