Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
fiduciary relationship which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other to so act.” Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1(1). There is no manifestation by either the federal government or the State of California of an intent to create an agency relationship under the facts of this case. First, both the Supreme Court and our predecessor court, the United States Court of Claims, have held that the federal government’s conditioning a state or locality’s receipt of federal funds on the state’s taking a particular action does not make that state or locality an agent of the federal government. See Griggs v. Allegheny County, Pa., 369 U.S. 84, 89, 82 S.Ct. 531, 7 L.Ed.2d 585 (1962) ; D.R. Smalley & Sons, Inc. v. United States,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the federal government was liable for a taking of property where california officials acting under the authority of a federal order occupied land
B. recognizing that stateimposed restrictions upon property may be attributed to the federal government for purposes of a takings analysis where the state officials acted as agents of the federal government or pursuant to federal authority
C. holding that the county government not the federal government was liable for the taking of an air easement over plaintiffs property even though the airport was funded in part by a federal grant based on compliance with federal regulations
D. holding that employees of county jail that housed federal prisoners pursuant to contract with the federal government were not federal employees even though county jail had to comply with federal rules and regulations
E. holding that the federal government was liable for a taking of property where city of burlington acted under federal authority
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.