Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
records should be treated as testimonial. A reliability-based approach to public records is harmonious with both the purpose of the Confrontation Clause right and the modern realities associated with proving the content of routinely maintained motor vehicle records. C. Conclusion [¶ 26] We thus conclude that our decision in Tayman remains valid precedent and should control our decision in this case. As in Tayman, the Secretary of State’s certificate authenticated and summarized routine motor vehicle records that were not primarily maintained for use as evidence in criminal prosecutions. Further, the certificat 41-42 (1st Cir.2006) (concluding that warrants of deportation were nontestimonial hearsay); see also United States v. Ballesteros-Selinger, 454 F.3d 973, 975 (9th Cir.2006) ; United States v. Valdez-Maltos, 443 F.3d 910,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a deportation proceeding commenced after an order to show cause issued
B. holding that a warrant issued by a judge lacking authority violated defendants fourth amendment rights
C. holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract
D. holding that a memorandum of oral decision issued by an immigration judge at a deportation hearing was nontestimonial
E. holding that an order or judgment issued by a disqualified judge is void but not because the court lacked jurisdiction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.