Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in which he has a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in him a fear” of certain specified harms "if the demand is not complied with”). 278 , See State v. Pauling, 149 Wash.2d 381, 69 P.3d 331, 336 (2003) (construing state extortion statute to incorporate a “wrongfulness” element, borrowed from federal law, limiting its reach to threats aimed at obtaining property that lack any nexus to a claim of right (citing Jackson, 180 F.3d at 70-71)), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 986, 124 S.Ct. 470, 157 L.Ed.2d 379 (2003); State v. Hynes, 159 N.H. 187, 978 A.2d 264, 278-79 (2009) (following Pauling in implying element of "wrongful” acquisition of property into extortion statute so as to exclude "legitimate claims to property through threats”); People v. Hickman, 988 P.2d 628, 636-37 (1999). . 279 .See Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. —,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that criminal threat prohibition was impliedly limited to threats of illegal or unlawful acts
B. holding that direct threat under the ada includes threats to self
C. holding that because original interception was not unlawful subsequent use by prosecutor could not be found unlawful
D. holding that the doctrine may only be predicated on continuing unlawful acts and not on the continuing effects of earlier unlawful conduct
E. holding that threat occurring 36 days before possession of firearm not present threat
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.