Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
McDonough intercepted the package at the mail facility located at the Dayton Airport, sometime during the morning of September 5, 2001. The label for the package indicated that delivery had been promised by noon on September 5th. In other words, the Defendant did not have a right to possess it until noon. Judge Merz issued that warrant at 9:54 a.m., on that date. There is no indication that the package could not have been delivered from the Dayton Airport to Mail Boxes, Etc., in Centerville, in two hours, if Judge Merz had refused to grant the requested search warrant or if no contraband had been discovered therein. Consequently, one could question whether the detention of the package was a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. England, 971 F.2d 419 (9th Cir.1992) . However, since the Government has failed to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding inspector had reasonable suspicion when the return sender was fictitious the package was shipped special delivery the label was handwritten the package had been mailed from california and the package had been taped up at all the seams
B. holding package was not seized when it was detained since it could have been delivered in timely fashion if cocaine had not been discovered inside
C. holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen
D. holding that it was not fatal when the notice of appeal did not state that the transcript had been ordered when in actuality it had been ordered
E. holding that state had waived argument because it could have been raised in an earlier appeal but was not and because it fell outside the scope of remand
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.