Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and remand the case to the district court. Riley and Mallett, JJ., concurred with Boyle, J. 1 MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1). 2 MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(i); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(i). 3 Contrary to the majority’s suggestion, ante, p 482, n 11, defendant has not been charged with conspiracy to deliver narcotics to Hoyt in Florida or in Michigan. Defendant is charged with conspiracy to deliver or possess with intent to deliver, and possession with intent to deliver does not logically require two persons for its completion. A conspiracy between Hoyt and his Michigan partner already existed before Hoyt traveled to Florida to purchase cocaine. It is this preexisting Michigan conspiracy that the prosecutor alleges that Blume became a member of by all y murder, 50 U Chi LR 1431, 1433-1439 (1983) . 11 LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law (2d ed), §
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing six bases territorial national protective universal passive personality and objective territorial
B. recognizing common law privileges
C. recognizing four bases territorial roman injured forum cosmopolitan
D. recognizing three bases common law or territorial significant activity and integral relation
E. recognizing five bases territorial national protective universal and passive personality
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.