Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
non-signing defendants’ consent, without more, is insufficient to satisfy the “rule of unanimity” under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). The removing defendants disagree, arguing that such a representation of consent satisfies their statutory obligation. Although no case in this district has addressed this precise issue, there is some limited support for the removing defendants’ position. See, e.g., Chrysler First Financial Services Corp. v. Greenfield, 753 F.Supp. 939, 941 (S.D.Fla.1991) (remanding the action because “[t]he other defendants ... have not joined in the United States’ petition for removal, nor has the United States indicated on the face of the removal petition whether the remaining defendants agree to removal”); Jasper v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 732 F.Supp. 104, 105 (M.D.Fla.1990) ; Mechanical Rubber & Supply Co. v. American
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the question whether the defendants consent to accompany the agents was in fact voluntary or was the product of duress or coercion express or implied is to be determined by the totality of all the circumstances
B. holding that the trial judge must comply with rule 3172c8 and advise all defendants in all cases that the plea may subject him or her to deportation 
C. holding that joinder in or consent to the removal petition must be accomplished by only those defendants 1 who have been served and 2 whom the removing defendants actually knew or should have known had been served
D. holding that all facts that would enhance the defendants sentence above the statutory maximum must be found by a jury
E. holding that the petition must be signed by all defendants or the signer mustallege consent of all defendants
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.