Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
address as 55-03 Van Doren Street; such repetition of one address indicated that the applications might include fraudulent statements; and he ordered all files in the file cabinets seized — even the ones that he had not individually searched. These actions bear none of the hallmarks of a general search: They suggest a fairly systematic inventory, not “indiscriminate rummaging,” and a search for items enumerated in the warrant, not an “exploratory” search for items not mentioned there. Indeed, federal courts have repeatedly held that such actions as were taken by the INS agents in this case, standing alone, do not support a finding that government agents have flagrantly disregarded the terms of a warrant. See, e.g., United States v. Hargus, 128 F.3d 1358, 1363 (10th Cir.1997)  (collecting cases). Accordingly, even assuming
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant
B. holding that officers were entitled to rely on the judicial officers finding of probable cause in issuing the search warrant unless they knowingly made false statements to obtain the warrant and that a challenge to the adequacy of the officers investigation does not rise to level of clearly established constitutional violation
C. holding that the government made a prima facie showing of authenticity of a warrant of removal where the immigration agent who maintained the defendants immigration file testified at trial as to his recordkeeping practices and that the warrant admitted was a true and correct copy of the warrant in the defendants file
D. holding that a warrant lacking a description of items to be seized was not facially invalid and finding in the alternative that even if the warrant were found to be deficient the seized evidence was admissible under the good faith exception
E. holding that where government agents were authorized by a warrant to search for broad categories of documentary evidence and records belonging to each category were found in every drawer of some file cabinets the officers did not grossly exceed the terms of the warrant when they seized entire file cabinets so that complete suppression was required
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.