Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
896 F.2d 605, 609 (1st Cir.1990). The Third Circuit has held that a defendant’s offer of proof which contains only a conclusory statement alleging falsity does not satisfy the “offer of proof’ requirement of Franks. United States v. Harvey, 2 F.3d 1318, 1328 (3d Cir.1993). Further, the Fifth Circuit in Williams v. Kunze, 806 F.2d 594 (5th Cir.1986), similarly held that a Franks hearing is not mandated where the record is devoid of a sworn statement supporting the defendant’s allegations of falsity. Id. at 599. The Tenth Circuit has stated that a defendant’s allegations of falsity alone do not meet the preliminary burden placed on the defendant under Franks. United States v. Ross, 920 F.2d 1530, 1533 (10th Cir.1990). The Ninth Circuit has even held that the productio Cir.1990) ; United States v. Zambrano, 841 F.2d 1320,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the court could not conclude that the plaintiffs deposition testimony was so contradictory of the statements contained in plaintiffs affidavit as to foreclose the affidavits use for summary judgment purposes
B. holding that the defendants offer of the affiants sworn testimony to establish falsity of the warrant affidavit did not amount to a substantial preliminary showing of falsity under franks
C. holding that the government cannot rely upon affidavits not attached to the warrant itself to satisfy the particularity requirement
D. holding that because the information omitted from the affidavit was immaterial to the investigation there was no error in denying defendants motion for a franks hearing
E. holding that the defendants allegations that the warrant affidavit contained falsified information did not satisfy franks even though the defendants offer of proof consisted of twentynine 29 affidavits
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.