Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
one of two possible definitions: (A) [an offense that] has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or (B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3). The first test is referred to as the elements clause, and the second test is known as the residual clause. A crime is a crime of violence if it satisfies either the elements clause or the residual clause. See id. The defendants argue that armed bank robbery does not meet requirements of the elements clause and that the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. This Court finds that armed bank robbery is (3d Cir. 2012) . Therefore, the Court must look at the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a conviction under  22039 qualifies as an aggravated felony under the categorical approach
B. holding that a district court cannot use the psrs factual statements when applying the modified categorical approach
C. holding that we need not remand to the bia so that it may apply the categorical approach
D. holding that the categorical approach applies to  924c
E. holding that the categorical approach applies to the identical definition of crime of violence in 18 usc  16
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.