Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
CURIAM: Roman Saldivar-Vasquez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation following a felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He argues that the district court plainly erred in assessing him a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015) due to his three prior Texas felony convictions for burglary of a habitation, in violation of Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1), which the district court characterized as crimes of violence. See United States v. Conde-Castaneda, 753 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 2014) . Saldivar-Velasquez argues that his
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that  3002a is divisible and reiterating that offenses under  3002a1 qualify as generic burglary
B. holding that a conviction under a divisible statute could not qualify as acca burglary pursuant to the modified categorical approach when there were no shepard documents to show that the crime of conviction was generic burglary
C. holding that burglary may qualify as offense against person if as committed it is in fact a crime against a person
D. holding that iowa burglary is not categorical burglary as the elements of iowa burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary
E. holding that virginia burglary statute comes within definition of generic burglary
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.