Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Silverdale, Washington, and did remain so absent until 18 June 1999. Charge Sheet. The Article 92 offense alleged that the appellant: having knowledge of a lawful order issued by CDR Steven L. Syzska, to report to the Correctional Custody Unit, an order which it was his duty to obey, did, at Naval Submarine Base Bangor, Silverdale, Washington, on or about 28 May 1999, fail to obey the same by wrongfully failing to report to the Correctional Custody Unit. Charge Sheet. Since the appellant entered unconditional guilty pleas to these two offenses at trial the issue of multiplicity is waived unless we find that the charges are facially duplicative. Lloyd, 46 M.J. at 23. When considering whether charges are facially duplicative—“that is, factually the same, 552 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App.1997). But see, United States v. Granger, 9 USCMA
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the insurer was estopped from asserting coverage defenses when it waited to file a declaratory action until 10 months after it had notice of the claim and several months after it had notice of a potential settlement of the underlying litigation
B. holding that one agreement cannot be taken to be several agreements and therefore several conspiracies because the agreement envisages the violation of several statutes rather than one
C. holding that dismissal was required where overall length of prosecution was 16 months state was responsible for 13 months of delay and six months of that delay was due to simple neglect
D. holding that an unauthorized absence of several months and missing movement were not multiplicious
E. holding one and onehalf months establishes causation while three months is too long and does not
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.