Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 401 and 402. We fail to see the logical connection between the fact of Archer Bank’s filing of CTRs and Van Allen’s guilt or innocence. The actions of Archer Bank following Van Allen’s various deposits and withdrawals do not demonstrate anything material about Van Allen’s state of mind. At most, the filing of CTRs may have indicated something about the knowledge of officials at Archer Bank; but such knowledge would not make it more or less likely that Van Allen knew of the reporting requirements or acted to avoid them. Whether or not Van Allen actually fooled Archer Bank has no bearing on the substantive violation under 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a). See Cassano, 372 F.3d at 878 . The multiple cases cited by Van Allen for the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the presumption is that the trial court acted reasonably in sentencing and that the defendant must show some unreasonable or unjustifiable basis in the record that amounts to an abuse of discretion
B. holding that the plaintiff bears the burden to show that the defendant acted with intent to deceive
C. holding that in a prosecution for willfully violating federal law against structuring financial transactions to evade bank reporting requirements the government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful
D. holding that a plaintiff must comply with the notice of claim requirements in order to maintain an action against a government employee even if the plaintiff claims that the employee acted with fraud or malice
E. holding that the government must show only that a defendant had knowledge of the reporting requirements and acted to avoid them
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.