Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the False Identification Crime Control Act of 1982, supports this understanding. The . Report contemplates that [t]he intent to use unlawfully is the intent to use (i.e., present, display, certify, or otherwise give currency to) the identification document in any manner so that it would be accepted as identification in- a manner that violates a federal, state or local - law, or is part of the . making of a misrepresentation that violates a law. H.R.Rep. No. 97-802, at 10 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3519, 3529. . In this way, any intentional unlawful use or transfer of multiple identification documents whose purpose is to identify individuals to government authorities would inherently be intended to deceive the government in some way. See Serrato-Soto, 570 F.3d at 690 . The BIA’s analysis in Matter of Serna further
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a defendants use of a persons name and social security number without permission constituted the use of a means of identification without lawful authority
B. recognizing willful failure to appear as an essential element of the bailjumping offense
C. holding that where a statute requires knowing or willful use of an altered or counterfeit social security number the offense in the ordinary case involves dishonesty as an essential element
D. holding that an allegation as to the time of the offense is not an essential element of the offense charged in the indictment and within reasonable time limits proof of any date before the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations is sufficient
E. holding a social security number is not private
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.