Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
brought by companies operating in municipalities); Carbone, 511 U.S. at 391-92, 114 S.Ct. at 1682-83 (invalidating town waste processing ordinance in suit by local waste processor against town); Fulton Corp., 516 U.S. at 346, 116 S.Ct. at 861 (striking down North Carolina tax in suit by North Carolina company); W. Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186, 188, 114 S.Ct. 2205, 2209, 129 L.Ed.2d 157 (1994) (striking down Massachusetts milk pricing order in suit by Massachusetts-licensed milk dealers); Fort Gratiot, 504 U.S. at 367-68, 112 S.Ct. at 2027-28 (striking down Michigan waste import restrictions in suit by Michigan landfill operator); S. Waste Sys., 420 F.3d at 1291-92 (upholding waste processing ordinance on merits in suit by in-state company); Leib, 558 F.3d at 1311 . In addition, as noted above, the dormant
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that state restrictions on electronic license plates might constitute an undue burden on interstate commerce so the claim fell within the zone of interests protected by the dormant commerce clause
B. holding that commerce clause authorizes congress to punish any particular criminal action even without proof of a relation to interstate commerce when the activity is part of a class of activities determined by congress to affect interstate commerce
C. holding that state regulations of intrastate wildlife are within dormant commerce clause
D. holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce
E. holding that dormant commerce clause complaint by instate resident against municipality failed on merits because challenged rule regulated evenhandedly and did not burden interstate commerce
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.