Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
provide “bare facts” instead of demonstrating that an offender’s guilty plea was based on that conduct. Huerta-Guevara v. Ashcroft, 321 F.3d 883, 888 (9th Cir.2003). It therefore appears that this Court cannot consider Plaintiffs admission in his Amended Complaint and deposition that he was married to Colette Fisher at the time of the 1997 incident under the modified categorical approach. Hayes indicates, however, that it is unnecessary to examine the elements of the predicate offense when analyzing whether that offense was “committed by a person who has a specified domestic relationship with the victim.” Rather, courts may look at the facts underlying the conviction to determine whether the “domestic relationship” requirement is satisfied. See Hayes, 555 U.S. at 421, 129 S.Ct. 1079  (emphasis added). Under Hayes, the question of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a domestic relationship must exist as part of the facts giving rise to the predicate offense but it need not be an element of the prior offense
B. holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction
C. holding that it suffices that a prior conviction   was in fact for an offense  committed by the defendant against a spouse or other domestic victim
D. holding that argument regarding victim of prior offense was improper
E. holding that for sentencing purposes the government does not need to allege a defendants prior conviction or prove the fact of a prior conviction where that fact is not an element of the present crime
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.