Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
any defect in the aircraft or component part — ceases to be material or admissible in any civil action[.] H.Rep. No. 103-525(11), at 6, reprinted in 1994, 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 1994, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 1648 (emphasis added). 16 . Here, it appears to be undisputed that the replacement parts alleged to have caused the accident were not manufactured by Appellants or supplied by them within the eighteen-year period. See Plaintiffs' Mem orandum of Law In Support of Their Response In Opposition To Defendant Textron Lycoming's Motion for Summary Judgment at 5 (acknowledging that Appellants did not manufacture the carburetor installed on the accident aircraft at the time of the crash); id. at 21 (same, with respect to the other allegedly defective parts); id. at 15 & Exhibits T, U . It should be noted that Appellants now
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that reviewing court considers effect of charge on jury rather than component parts
B. recognizing that the overhaul in which relevant replacement parts were installed was not undertaken by appellants but rather was accomplished by mattituck airbase inc
C. holding that a defendants right to present relevant evidence is not unlimited but rather is subject to reasonable restrictions
D. holding that 1 even if some conduct is not actionable as securities fraud that conduct cannot support a civil rico claim if it was also undertaken in connection with the purchase of a security and 2 conduct in maintaining ponzi scheme was conduct undertaken in connection with the purchase or sale of securities
E. recognizing that delancie implied that secret monitoring of conversations between detainees and visitors undertaken for the purpose of gathering evidence for use in criminal proceedings rather than to maintain the security of the jail was unlawful
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.