Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13, but refused to do so because it interpreted the Guidelines to prohibit a departure where, as here, the crime involved actual violence. Because the district court rested its decision on an issue of law, this court has jurisdiction to review its decision, and its decision is subject to de novo review. Section 5K2.13 states that “the court may not depart below the applicable guideline range if ... (2) the facts and circumstances of the defendant’s offense indicate a need to protect the public because the offense involved actual violence or a serious threat of violence.” U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 (1998) (emphasis added). The Guidelines thus prohibit departure where the offense involved actual violence. Accord United States v. Thames, 214 F.3d 608, 614 (5th Cir.2000) . The district court looked at all the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under  5k213 no departure may be given where the crime was violent in nature
B. holding that it was appropriate for the trial court to find that lack of a prior criminal record was not a mitigating factor in light of the violent nature of the crime committed
C. recognizing that postoffense rehabilitative efforts while normally not grounds for departure may support departure in extraordinary circumstances and noting that the totality of the circumstances may justify a departure where a single circumstance is not alone sufficient
D. holding that a reference to the violent crime sentencing statute in the second degree assault statute required automatic imposition of violent crime sentencing for a defendant convicted of second degree assault
E. holding that the force necessary to constitute a crime of violence must actually be violent in nature quotation and alteration omitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.