Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Waggoner received was to compensate him for traveling from Texarkana to Shreveport, It reasoned that $10 of the $50 per diem was intended to pay for his “actual travel expense” and the remaining $40 was to “compensate the employees for their travel time.” The Commission also noted that “the per diem was intended to bear a rational relationship to the actual cost of the employee’s transportation costs from Texarkana to the company’s various work sites,” The “compensated travel” concept has not been fully developed or discussed in the case law. As a general rule, however, this exception applies when an employee’s compensation covers' the time going back and forth from work or an allowance is made for the cost of transportation. Chicot Mem’l Hasp., 9 Ark. App. at 20, 652 S.W.2d at 632 . The compensated-travel exception has also
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding where the employer supplies less than the actual expense of travel exception would apply only if the reimbursement bore a reasonable relation to the actual expense of travel or was for a substantial part of it
B. holding the defendant responsible for the greater of the actual or intended loss
C. holding a plaintiff failed to show an actual injury to challenge an epa rule when the plaintiff alleged he would not have purchased a piece of property or would have paid  less because the plaintiffs allegations showed only that the property was worth less to him not that the property was in fact worth less
D. holding that apprendi does not apply where the defendant was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum
E. holding that because the hospital had no actual or constructive notice that the parties were separated at the time services were rendered the separation exception did not apply
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.