Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
threat. Further, he was hitting the building with the bat, which could be a form of intimidation. (R. 47, Sent. Tr. 8, PagelD# 146). We agree with the district court that Wagoner’s conduct evidenced an intent to carry out his threat against Carey, warranting application of the 6-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(l). Wagoner told Carey, “If you do not give me my check by Friday, I will come and terminate you.” (R. 30, Notice of Factual Basis 2, Pa-gelD# 86). On Friday, Wagoner went to the SSA office with an aluminum bat and said, “If I do not get my money today someone is going to get hurt.” (Id.). Going to where Carey worked on the stated deadline with an aluminum bat establishes a nexus between Wagoner’s conduct and his threat to “terminate” Carey. See Newell, 309 F.3d at 402 . Because the district court properly applied
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the defendants purchase of a firearm and ammunition on the same day that he made a threat demonstrates that his threats are more than mere puffery and evidences an intent to carry out the threats
B. holding that threats to inflict financial or personal harm are not true threats where no ones personal safety is threatened
C. holding that an enhancement for an express threat of death may not be applied to the sentence for robbery when the threat is related to the use of the firearm and the defendant has a  924c sentence for the same firearm
D. holding that threats standing alone  constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm 
E. holding that threats to fire employees based on legitimate concerns about productivity do not constitute harassment because any threats made to these plaintiffs  were no greater than justified by their lack of sales
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.