Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
particular address at which service was attempted; therefore, there was no evidence indicating that the mother’s house was the defendant’s “dwelling house or usual place of abode.” Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller’s treatise on Federal Practice and Procedure discusses “dwelling house or usual place of abode” as follows: “The language ‘dwelling house or usual place of abode’ in Rule 4(e)(2) is taken directly from the former Equity Rule 13. Despite the length of time these words have been a part of federal practice, the judicial decisions do not rticular case. Courts evaluate those facts mindful that the purpose of Rule 4 is to ensure that service is reasonably calculated to provide a defendant with actual notice of the action. Karlsson v. Rabinowitz, 318 F.2d 666 (4th Cir.1963) ; Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the appellant had not changed his residence from his registered address despite the fact that the house had never had electricity service during the time that he had lived there
B. holding that one of several houses throughout the world among which the defendant divided his time constituted a dwelling house or usual place of abode for purpose of service of process regardless of the facts that it was not the defendants principal domicile and that he spent comparatively little time there
C. holding that one of the twelve or so homes throughout the world among which the individual defendant divided his time constitutes a dwelling house or usual place of abode for purposes of service of process even though that home is not the defendants principal domicile and even though he may spend comparatively little time there
D. holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service
E. holding that service was proper where a copy of the summons and complaint was left with the defendants wife at the defendants maryland house in which the defendant had lived before moving ahead of his family to arizona where he had purchased a house intending never to return to maryland and to move his family to arizona noting that the service was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of service at the defendants dwelling house or usual place of abode where the service succeeded in actually apprising him of the lawsuit
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.