Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
receive a downward departure for providing substantial assistance to the government. The sentencing court did just that. It did not consider McFarlane’s extensive drug dealing history in setting his guideline range of 60 to 71 months, but did consider that history in determining whether to grant a downward departure and how much of a departure to grant. The court granted the government’s motion for a downward departure, but limited the extent of the departure based in part on McFarlane’s extensive drug dealing history. Thus, the terms of McFarlane’s cooperation agreement, and correspondingly his constitutional rights, were not violated when he received at least a ten-month downward departure, based partly on testimony he gave at his code-fendants’ trial. See Luloff, 15 F.3d at 766 ; Nyhuis, 8 F.3d at 742 (holding that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit
B. holding trial court improperly granted dismissal on ground of immunity because the defendant had qualified statutory immunity rather than absolute immunity
C. holding that an immunity agreement limited to title 21 drug offenses was not violated when the defendant was charged with unlawfully possessing a gun a nondrug offense based on testimony provided pursuant to the immunity agreement
D. holding that in the absence of explicit language to the contrary an informal immunity agreement confers the minimum immunity required by the constitution
E. holding that dismissal pursuant to a plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity is with prejudice
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.