Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
federal authority by making all assaults against them felonies. The latter would require us to glean an “assault prong” from two subsections and apply the simple assault clause. But without a good reason to do so, we cannot disregard the statutory structure of § 111(a) in this manner, particularly where the text clearly directs that “acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault.” Contra Jones, 526 U.S. at 239, 119 S.Ct. 1215 (interpreting statute contrary to structure to avoid “grave and doubtful constitutional questions”). Moreover, in addition to the plain language of the statute, case law supports Vallery by stating or implying that the simple assault provision applies to the entirety of § 111(a). See United States v. Arrington, 309 F.3d 40, 44 (D.C.Cir.2002) ; Yates, 304 F.3d at 822 (“We hold that, in the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that specific intent is not element of assault resulting in serious bodily injury
B. holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established
C. 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
D. holding the second element of assault is assault resist oppose impede intimidate or interfere with and that the word forcibly  modifies each of the prohibited acts specified in the second element
E. holding that consent is not a defense to the charge of second degree assault where the assault occurred in the context of a prison fight between inmates
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.