Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
body language would not be improper — was also reasonable. See Burks, 27 F.3d at 1429 & n. 3 (noting that trial counsel’s evaluation of a potential juror’s demeanor, tone, and facial expressions may lead to a "hunch” or "suspicion" that the juror might be biased, and that a peremptory challenge based on this reason would be legitimate); United States v. Power, 881 F.2d 733, 740 (9th Cir.1989) (accepting as legitimate the government's explanation that a juror’s "fidgeting and looking around as he sat in the jury box ... made the prosecutor believe that the individual would not be an attentive juror”). 12 . Although Collins does not challenge the prosecutor's strike against Juror 019, this strike is relevant to Collins’ Batson challenge. See Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 363, 111 S.Ct. 1859  (internal quotation marks omitted); Purkett,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances
B. holding that parties may stipulate to facts from which jurisdiction may be inferred
C. holding that a prosecutors motive may often be inferred from the totality of relevant facts
D. holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence
E. holding that an invidious discriminatory purpose may often be inferred from the totality of the relevant facts
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.