Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to induce the carrier to connect the call to the desired number and to broadcast the desired signals. Such a transmission constitutes an attempt to defraud the cellular carrier, and intent to defraud is an element, along with the involvement of an “access device,” of any violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029. We see no reason why the construction and sale of “tumbling” phones should not fall within the proscriptions of § 1029. C. “Free Riding” The defendant nevertheless attempts to analogize his devices to those in McNutt by claiming that he is merely “piggybacking” onto an an existing system and getting a “free ride” without actually imposing any costs on anyone. The Tenth Circuit accepted that characterization in extending the holding of McNutt to tumbling the ESN. Brady, 13 F.3d at 340 . The district court also seems to have been
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that restitution in the full amount of each victims losses does not exceed the statutory maximum
B. holding that batson does apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review
C. holding that the rule announced in ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review
D. holding that  1029 does not apply to free riding on the cellular system in part because the use did not result in direct accounting losses
E. holding that the special relationship exception did not apply because the decedent was not in defendants custody
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.