Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and one count of conspiring to structure, they faced a combined maximum fine of $1,000,000. Because the amount the Strelskis were required to forfeit — a total of $140,630 — is well below the $1,000,000 statutory maximum, there is a strong presumption that the forfeiture is constitutional. 817 N.E. 29th Drive, Wilton Manors, Fla., 175 F.3d at 1309. The maximum fine authorized for the Strelskis under the sentencing guidelines is $50,000 each, resulting in a combined total fine of $100,000. Although the forfeiture amount exceeds the maximum fine under the guidelines, it is still “near the permissible range of fines under the sentencing guidelines,” which means that it is almost certainly not excessive. See United States v. 127 & j.29 Hall St., 74 F.3d 1165,1172-73 (11th Cir.1996) . The Strelskis contend that the fine is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that forfeiture of property valued at 65000 was not excessive where the maximum fine under the sentencing guidelines was 40000
B. holding defendant sentenced to term equal to maximum guidelines sentence under improperly calculated sentencing guidelines scoresheet was not entitled to be resentenced because defendant was habitualized such that sentencing guidelines score sheet was irrelevant and the sentence imposed was not illegal
C. holding statutory maximum for prior conviction is the potential maximum sentence defined by the applicable state criminal statute not the maximum sentence which could have been imposed against the particular defendant  according to the states sentencing guidelines
D. holding that forfeiture of property valued at 150000 was excessive where the maximum statutory fine was 20000
E. holding that forfeiture of 357144 in currency was excessive where the maximum statutory fine was 250000 and the maximum fine under the sentencing guidelines was 5000
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.