Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(3) the blameworthiness of the actor; (4) the nature and severity of the potential penalties for a violation of the law. Id. Applying this analytical framework, we must determine whether Minn.Stat. § 609.165 is criminal/prohibitory or civil/regulatory. Recently, we addressed this exact issue in an unpublished opinion in State v. Bellanger, No. A06-1907, 2007 WL 4472287, at *l-*2 (Minn.App. Dec. 24, 2007), review denied (Minn. Mar. 18, 2008), and concluded that Minn.Stat. § 609.165 was criminal/prohibitory. Although not prece-dential, we find the reasoning in Bellanger to be persuasive, and we adopt it here. See Minn.Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008) (“[Ujnpublished opinions of the court of appeals are not precedential.”); Dynamic Air, Inc. v. Bloch, 502 N.W.2d 796, 800 (Minn.App.1993) . In Bellanger, we held that Minn.Stat. §
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a duty to disclose did not arise under the special facts doctrine where while there may have been concealment of opinions there was no concealment of the facts upon which those opinions were based and de fendants were not bound to volunteer their opinions citation and internal quotation marks omitted
B. holding in an unpublished opinion that manifest disregard survives hall street as a nonstatutory ground for vacatur
C. holding that a taxpayer is required to present  substantial and persuasive evidence that the boards valuation is erroneous
D. holding that unpublished opinions may be persuasive
E. holding that direct evidence of a fact is not necessary and that circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient but may also be more certain satisfying and persuasive
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.