Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to allege certain elements of the crime. We review the sufficiency of an indictment de novo. United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 364 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir.2004). Bello-Bahena asserts that the district court should have dismissed the indictment because it failed to allege (1) voluntary entry, (2) inspection and admission by an immigration officer or actual and intentional evasion of inspection, and (3) knowledge of presence in the United States. However, each of these claims is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Rivera-Sillas, 376 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2004) (“That clause [§ 1326] does not require the indictment to specifically state that the defendant alien voluntarily entered the United States.”); id. at 892 ; id. at 893 (holding that an indictment under
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense
B. recognizing difference in elements between offense of actual entry and attempted entry
C. holding that a found in indictment need not allege all of the elements of entry
D. holding that elements of statute which became  924e need not be reflected in indictment for crime charged
E. holding that an indictment charging one offense during the commission of another crime need not allege the elements of the latter offense
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.