Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
as a witness, he did not receive any money for his actions. See infra, p. 587. 8 .Although the Third Circuit, in Klem, analyzed the definition of "substantial burden” in the context of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, this test has been used interchangeably in the RFRA context. See Geneva Coll., 778 F.3d at 442-43. 9 . It is worth mentioning that, though not applicable to the case at hand, the test to determine the validity of a prison regulation which impinges on prisoners' constitutional rights includes as one factor “whether inmates retain alternative means of exercising the circumscribed right.” DeHart v. Horn, 390 F.3d 262, 269 (3d Cir.2004); see Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 90, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), 10 . The Suprem (9th Cir.1969) , cert. denied, 397 U.S. 943, 90 S.Ct. 956, 25
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the federal kidnapping act does not make the kidnappers motivation an ingredient of the crime
B. holding that assault and kidnapping charges do not merge as they are not the same act for purposes of blockburger  and as each required proof of an element the other did not
C. holding the connection is an element
D. recognizing that kidnapping under oklahoma law is a felony
E. holding that a kidnappers motivation is not an element of the federal kidnapping offense
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.