Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(referring to “reason to know” as a “finding of fact”). Constructive knowledge. The government argues that Bertucco had “reason to know” of the presence of dyed fuel because (i) he signed the stamped ticket, and (ii) as a matter of settled law, his act of signing the ticket charged him with constructive knowledge of its contents. The district court agreed: Here, regardless of whether Bertucco ... paused to read the whole delivery ticket, [he] had constructive knowledge of the presence of dyed diesel by virtue of the “RED DYED” stamp. ConEd, 34 F.Supp.2d at 165. The district court equated constructive knowledge with “reason to know,” an equation the parties do not contest, and that is consistent with precedent. See, e.g., Holzapfel v. Town of Newburgh, 145 F.3d 516, 524 (2d Cir.1998) ; Hayman, 992 F.2d at 1262. In general,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a  1983 claim accrues when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of injury
B. holding such service satisfies due process
C. holding that constructive knowledge satisfies the reason to know standard
D. holding that actual or constructive possession satisfies the uses or carries requirement of section 924c1
E. recognizing that duty to warn of dangerous conditions could be based on constructive knowledge of that condition as well as actual knowledge
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.