Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
we accept the designation of K.S.A. § 79-3321 as a criminal statute. Because Stephan was acting to enforce a criminal law under a federal grant of criminal jurisdiction, we believe that Stephan possessed jurisdiction to execute the warrants at Kaul’s store. A further distinction with Oklahoma Tax Commission and Colville is that those cases involved a state’s attempt to tax an Indian tribe, while in the present case the state asserted authority to tax an individual who is not a member of the tribe where her store is located. The Supreme Court has recognized a distinction between Indians and nonmember Indians in several contexts, and has for most practical purposes treated nonmember Indians in the same manner as non-Indians. See, for example, Colville, 447 U.S. at 161, 100 S.Ct. at 2085 ; Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, 688, 110 S.Ct.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that indian tribes lack tribal jurisdiction over crimes committed by nonmember indians within the tribes reservation
B. recognizing the inherent power of indian tribes  to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all indians
C. holding over
D. holding that states taxing jurisdiction over nonmember indians is equivalent to states taxing jurisdiction over nonindians
E. holding federal legislation conferring jurisdiction on federal courts to try nonindians for offenses committed in indian country had implicitly preempted tribal criminal jurisdiction over nonindians
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.